paiKCETOH  -1^ 
ntC.  APR  1884  I 
THSOLOGIOAE/ 


Division 
r ec+ion.J. 


HV58I6 

L723 

r-  mrwwm  m 


",i^' 


. 1^>y: 


V.  . 


»:;  (<  ‘ 


il 


IS* 


I 


✓ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


IMt* 


https://archive.0rg/details/opiumenglandscoeOOIigg_O 


OPIUM 

England’s  Coercive  Policy  and  its 

D ISASTROUS  R ESULTS  IN 

China  and  India 


THE  SPREAD  OF  OPIUM-SMOKING  IN  AMERICA 


BY 

REV.  JOHN  LIGGINS 

FORMERLY  AMERICAN  EPISCOPAL  MISSIONARY  IN  CHINA 


That  which  is  tnorally  wrong  cannot  be  politically  right 


NEW  YORK 

FUNK  & WAGNALLS,  Publishers 

1882 


Copyright,  1882, 

Bv  FUNK  & WAGNALLS. 


PREFACE. 


Our  aim  in  this  sketch  has  been  to  present,  as  briefly  as 
practicable,  the  most  important  facts  and  testimonies  con- 
cerning a traflic  which  is  as  disgraceful  to  England,  as  it  is 
ruinous  to  China,  and  hurtful  to  India;  and  which,  if  it  is  not 
soon  suppressed,  will  very  injuriously  affect  other  nations 
also,  as,  indeed,  it  has  already  begun  to  do  ^our  own  country. 

Comparatively  few  Americans  are  well-informed  upon  this 
subject,  and  yet  it  is  important  that  an  enlightened  public 
sentiment  should  prevail  here,  because  such  a sentiment  can- 
not but  react  upon  England,  and  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the 
odious  and  destructive  trade. 

It  is  also  of  the  highest  importance  that  the  people  through- 
out our  wide  domain  should  be  aroused  concerning  the  new, 
fascinating  and  deadly  foe  which  has  entered  our  country 
through  the  Golden  Gate,  and  which  already  numbers  its 
American  confirmed  victims  by  the  thousands,  and  will  soon 
do  so  by  the  tens  of  thousands. 

There  are  twenty  “joints”  or  opium  dens  in  New  York 
City,  and  they  are  found  in  all  the  cities  of  the  United  States 
and  Canada  in  which  Chinamen  have  taken  up  their  abode; 
and  at  this  present  writing  it  is  computed  that  there  are  not 
only  twenty-five  thousand  ^Chinese  in  our  country  who  are 
confirmed  opium  smokers,  but  also  twenty  thousand  white 
men,  women  and  youths,  in  all  classes  of  society,  who  are 
regular  or  occasional  opium  smokers. 

We  cannot  forbear,  therefore,  from  giving  a note  of  warn- 
ing; and  we  hope  that  better  and  more  effective  trumpets 


2 


than  ours  will  continue  to  sound  the  alarm  until  the  necessary 
repressive  and  prohibitory  measures  are  adopted  and  enforced. 

How  much  need  there  is  for  prompt  and  energetic  action, 
may  be  seen  from  the  following  account  of  a New  York  den, 
by  a writer  in  the  Evening  Post,  of  August  21st,  1882: 

“A  visit  to  Pape’s  establishment  is  an  extraordinary  ex- 
perience. On  each  side,  and  extending  the  length  of  the 
dimly-lighted,  stenchful,  and  meagre  room,  are  low  platforms 
on  which  the  smokers  recline,  their  heads  supported  by  small 
wooden  stools.  The  smokers  are  in  groups  of  from  two  to 
six  persons.  In  the  center  of  each  group  is  a tray  containing 
a pipe  and  its  appurtenances.  One  of  the  number  “ cooks  ” 
the  opium  and  prepares  the  pipe,  which  is  smoked  in  turn  by 
the  others.  Cheek  by  jowl  in  these  groups  are  men  and  boys 
of  respectable  Conditions,  girls  and  hardened  women,  thieves 
and  sporting  men,  actors  and  actresses,  drunken  carousers  and 
Chinamen.  In  a corner  of  the  room  Pape,  a blear-eyed  and 
wizened  Chinaman,  drowsily  but  carefully  weighs  and  serves 
in  little  ocean  shells  the  twenty -five  and  fifty  cents’  worth  of 
opium  as  it  is  called  for  by  the  smokers.  The  fumes  from  the 
pipes  fill  the  room  with  a thick,  bluish  cloud,  which  partly 
hides  the  scene  of  abandonment,  intoxication  and  debasement.” 

Is  the  curse  of  such  vile  establishments  to  be  extended  all 
over  our  country,  or  is  the  seductive  and  fearfully  debasing 
vice  of  opium-smoking  to  be  suppressed  ? This  is  almost  as 
momentous  a question  for  us,  as  the  continuance  or  discontin- 
uance of  the  iniquitous  opium  traflBc  is  for  England. 

JOHN  LIGGINS, 

AtTGtrsT  30th,  1882.  South  Orange,  N.  J. 


ENGLANDS’  COERCIVE  OPIUM  POLICY,  AND  ITS 
DISASTROUS  RESULTS  IN  CHINA. 


The  enforced  Opium  Traffic  has  now  reached  such  vast  pro- 
portions, that,  with  the  approval  of  the  Home  Government, 
the  British  Rulers  of  India  have  perverted  seven  hund- 
red thousand  acres  of  the  best  land  in  that  country 
to  the  growth  of  the  poppy,  and  they  are  the  manufacturers 
of  and  traffickers  in  the  opium,  one  hundred  thousand  chests, 
or  five  thousand  tons  of  which  are  imported  into  China  every 
year,  and  the  profits  to  the  English  Government  are  forty 
millions  of  dollars  annually  ! Thus  for  filthy  lucre’s  sake 
England  is  engaged  in  the  wholesale  demoralization  and  ruin 
of  the  Chinese  Nation. 

In  a recent  charge,  the  Bishop  of  Madras  alludes  to  the 
shameful  wrong  which  England  has  been  inflicting  on  China 
for  more  than  fifty  years,  and  says:^ — “ Protectors  of  opium- 
smugglers,  we  forced  the  rulers  of  China,  against  their  earnest 
protests,  and  with  the  powerful  argument  of  our  cannon,  to 
open  their  ports  for  the  admission  of  the  drug,  which  was  to 
besot  and  ruin  the  inhabitants  of  that  vast  empire.” 

THE  VERDICT  CONCERNING  OPIUM:. 

Dr.  Dudgeon,  who  has  been  for  twenty  years  in  charge  of 
the  Chinese  hospital  at  Peking,  and  is  a Professor  in  the 
Imperial  College  for  Western  Sciences  at  that  city,  says: 
“ Opium  is  the  most  mischievous  of  all  substances  ever  resorted 
to  as  a daily  stimulant.”  This  is  the  judgment  of  the  twenty- 
five  medical  missionaries  in  China. 

The  Rev.  E.  E.  Jenkins,  an  experienced  and  distinquished 
Missionary,  says:  “The  opium  trade  as  now  carried  on  be- 
tween us  and  China  is  alike  immoral  and  impolitic.  Opium  is 
poison.  Those  who  endeavor  to  liken  the  consumption  of  it 
to  the  use  of  alcoholic  beverages  in  this  country  know  not 


4 


what  they  say  or  whereof  they  affirm.  It  is  a medical  poison, 
and  outside  the  medical  use  it  is  a ruthless  and  indiscriminat- 
ing  destroyer  of  body  and  of  mind.”  This  is  the  verdict  of 
the  two  hundred  clerical  missionaides  in  China. 

H.  H.  Kane,  M.  D.,  of  New  York,  in  his  very  valuable 
work  on  Opium  Smoking,  quotes  the  following  testimony  of 
Sir  Charles  Forbes:  “For  fascinating  seductiveness,  im- 
measurable agony,  and  appalling  ruin,  the  world  has  yet  to 
see  its  parallel.”  This  is  the  opinion  of  scientific  men  after 
extensive  observation  and  knowledge  of  the  subject, 

Wen-seang,  the  distinguished  Chinese  Foreign  Minister, 
said  to  Sir  Rutherford  Alcock,  that  “ the  foreign  importation 
of  opium  was  impoverishing,  demoralizing,  and  brutalizing 
the  people;  it  is  a deadly  poison,  most  injurious  to  mankind.’’ 
This  is  the  settled  conviction  of  the  Chinese  Government  and 
nation. 

We  may  imagine,  then,  what  a frightful  amount  of  desti- 
tution, crime,  disease  and  death  those  thousands  of  tons  yearly 
produce. 

MISERY  AND  RUIN  AMONG  THE  BURMESE. 

A lurid  light  is  thrown  upon  the  effects  in  China  of  the  en- 
forced opium  traffic  by  the  reports  for  1880  to  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, of  the  Chief  Commissioner  and  eight  District  Com- 
missioners of  British  Burmah,  concerning  the  awful  results  of 
the  introduction  of  opium  into  that  country.  Before  it  was 
conquered  by  the  British  forces,  and  then  annexed  to  the 
Indian  Empire,  opium  was  as  rigidly  excluded  from  every  part 
of  Burmah  as  it  now  is  from  Japan,  these  Asiatics  knowing, 
as  well  as  the  Chinese,  that  there  was  nothing  but  ruin  for 
them  if  it  was  admitted.  But  no  sooner  did  England  obtain 
control  of  the  country  than  British  subordinate  officials  dis- 
tributed opium  gratuitously  among  the  natives  to  create  a 
market  for  it;  and  now  the  results  in  the  demoralization,  im- 
poverishment and  ruin  of  the  people  are  fearful. 

These  reports  were  withheld  from  the  nation  and  from  Par- 
liament by  the  Secretary  of  State  for  India,  until  their  pre- 
sentation and  publication  were  demanded,  and  all  right-think- 
ing people  have  been  shocked  by  the  revelations. 


5 


“The  papers  now  submitted  for  consideration,”  says  the 
Chief  Commissioner,  “ Present  a painful  picture  of  the  de- 
moralization, misery,  and  ruin  produced  among  the  Burmese 
by  opium  smoking  ....  Among  the  Burmans  the 
habitual  use  of  the  drug  saps  the  physical  and  mental  ener- 
gies, destroys  the  nerves,  emaciates  the  body,  predisposes  to 
disease,  induces  indolent  and  filthy  habits  of  life,  destroys 
self-respect,  is  one  of  the  most  fertile  sources  of  misery,  desti- 
tution and  crime,  fills  the  jails  with  men  of  relaxed  frame 
predisposed  to  dysentery  and^cholera,  prevents  the  due  ex- 
tension of  cultivation  and  the  development  of  the  land  reve- 
nue, checks  the  natural  growth  of  the  population,  and  en- 
feebles the  constitution  of  succeeding  generations.” 

A HANDSOME  PEOPLE  CHANGED  TO  HAGGARD  WRETCHES. 

In  Arracan,  too,  the  opium  policy  of  the  British  Rulers  of 
India  has  turned  a “ healthy,  handsome  people  into  a race  of 
haggard  wretches.”  Before  that  province  was  annexed  to 
England’s  Indian  Empire,  it  was  death  by  law  to  use  opium; 
but  as  soon  as  English  rule  was  established,  government 
agents  were  sent  from  Calcutta  to  educate  this  industrious 
and  sober  people  in  the  new  vice.  They  opened  shops  for  the 
gratuitous  distribution  of  opium,  inviting  the  young  men  to 
try  it.  Then  when  the  taste  was  established,  the  opium  was 
sold  at  a low  rate;  but  as  the  vice  spread,  the  price  was 
raised,  and  large  profits  ensued;  but  with  the  dreadful  results 
to  the  people  which  we  have  stated.  Such  is  the  evidence  of 
Dr.  George  Smith,  Sir  Arthur  Phayre,  and  Mr.  Hind. 

There  are  still  Government  oflScials  who  are  in  favor  of  this 
abominable  course  of  proceeding.  The  Nagas  are  a brave 
mountain  tribe  in  India,  and  as  they  are  restive  under*  British 
domination,  the  Calcutta  Englishman,  says;  “ Our  civilizing 
influence  will  probably  take  the  form  of  making  the  Naga  a 
peaceable  subject  through  his  developing  a taste  for  opium’,  this 
indeed  is  the  aspiration  of  one  political  officer  expressed  in  an 
official  report?"'* 

This  may  not  be  Strange  reading  to  many  Englishmen  in 
India,  but  it  ought  to  be  to  Britons  at  home,  who  should 


^Friend  of  China,  for  March,  1882. 


6 


blush  with  shame  at  what  their  Government  in  India  has  been 
doing  in  the  past,  and,  according  to  this  authority,  will  prob- 
ably do  in  the  future,  if  permitted. 

GIVING  AWAY  OPIUM  IN  CHINA. 

In  his  Middle  Kingdom,  Dr.  S.  Wells  Williams  says  that 
the  officers  of  some  of  the  first  British  opium  ships  to  China 
gave  the  seductive  drug  to  the  people  along  the  coast,  and 
bribed  some  of  the  officials  to  connive  at,  and  some  of  the 
boatmen  and  others  to  aid  in«,the  introduction  of  the  baneful 
stuff. 

How  little  have  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  or  those  of 
“ Greater  Britain,”  known  of  the  scandalous  doings  of  English 
Government  agents.,  or  those  whom  they  have  diplomatically 
and  by  force  of  arms  aided,  in  these  Asiatic  countries. 

The  recent  revelations  concerning  Burmah  and  Arracan 
have  so  shocked  the  English  people  and  raised  such  an 
outcry,  that  the  Secretory  of  State  for  India  has  been  im- 
pelled to  order  the  closing  of  two-thirds  of  the  opium  shops. 
May  the  indignation  and  agitation  continue  until  all  of  them 
are  closed,  and  until  England’s  opium  policy  towards  China 
shall  cease,  where  the  evil  has  been  carried  upon  a vaster 
scale,  and  accompanied  by  more  violent  measures. 

It  is  much  more  difficult,  however,  to  awaken  sufficient 
interest  and  effort  in  behalf  of  an  injured,  far  away  people, 
when  those  people  are  not  “ British  subjects,” 

THE  NUMBER  OP  VICTIMS  IN  CHINA. 

It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  with  any  degree  of  accuracy 
the  present  number  of  the  slaves  of  the  vice  in  China. 
It  is  conceded  by  advocates  of  the  traffic  that  there  are  at 
least  six  millions,  while  some  missionaries  and  others  who 
have  traveled  extensively  in  the  empire  say  this  is  far  too 
small  an  estimate  ; by  these  it  is  claimed  that  there  are  at 
least  fifteen  millions.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Williamson,  the  author 
of  Journeys  in  North  China,  expresses  the  belief  that 
“ there  are  several  tens  of  millions  of  smokers.”  Dr.  Dud- 
geon says  “ 30  to  40  per  cent,  of  the  male  population.” 


7 


Mr.  Thomville  T.  Cooper,  who  had  travelled  through  the 
breadth  of  China,  testihed  before  the  Finance  Committee  of 
the  House  of  Commons  in  IS^l,  that  at  least  one-third  of  the 
male  population  were  addicted  to  the  vice. 

The  reason  for  the  difference  of  statement  is  that  the 
vicious  habit  prevails  in  the  seaports  more  than  in  other 
towns;  in  the  cities  generally,  more  than  in  the  country,  and 
in  some  provinces  more  than  in  others.  It  is  important  to 
have  the  evidence  of  one  who,  like  Mr.  Cooper,  has  travelled 
in  the  western  as  well  as  the  eastern  provinces,  and  whose 
book  shows  him  to  be  as  free  from  prejudices  as  any  of  the 
great  explorers. 

His  testimony,  however,  was  given  eleven  years  ago,  and 
if  it  was  correct  then,  there  are  now  probably  forty  per  cent, 
of  the  adult  male  population,  with  a considerable  number  of 
the  female  sex,  who  are  addicted  to  the  vice,  for  all  testify 
that  there  is  a constant  increase  in  the  number  of  those  who 
indulge  in  the  debasing  habit. 

Mr.  A.  Wylie,  who  has  traveled  in  the  different  provinces 
of  China  for  about  twenty-five  years  as  the  agent  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  says  that  “ unless  measures 
be  found  to  check  the  practice,  it  bids  fair  to  accomplish  the 
utter  destruction  morally  and  physically  of  this  great  nation.” 
Dr.  Legge,  Professor  of  the  Chinese  language  and  literature 
at  Oxford  says:  “It  is  as  certain  as  anything  can  be,  that 
this  opium  traffic,  unless  it  be  arrested,  will  reduce  the  empire 
of  China  to  beggary  and  ruin.” 

WHAT  THE  OPIHM  SMOKER  WILL  DO. 

The  opium  smoker  will  not  only  part  with  his  worldly  pos- 
sessions, but  he  will  even  sell  his  wife  and  children,  and  then 
take  to  stealing  and  other  crimes  in  order  to  get  the  means  to 
satisfy  his  fearful  cravings  for  the  drug. 

The  Rev.  W.  H.  Collins,  M.R.C.S.,  of  the  English  Church 
Mission  at  Peking,  says:  “To  supply  his  pipe  the  man  will 
take  the  clothes  off  his  children’s  backs,  exposing  them  to  all 
the  severity  of  winter  weather;  he  will  sell  his  wife;  he  will 
take  the  wadded  garments  off  his  aged  mother,  and  so  cause 
her  to  die  a cruel  death  from  cold,” 


8 


Dr.  S.  Wells  Williams,  in  his  “ Middle  Kingdom,”  says: 
“ The  evils  suffered,  and  the  crimes  committed  by  the  des- 
perate victims  of  the  opium  pipe,  are  dreadful  and  multiplied. 
Theft,  arson,  murder,  and  suicide  are  perpetrated  in  order  to 
obtain  it,  or  escape  its  effects.” 

CRIMINAL  CONDUCT  OF  ENGLAND. 

That  England  should  forcibly  and  violently  insist  upon  the 
introduction  of  the  noxious  stuff,  in  face  of  the  Government 
prohibition,  and  knowing  at  the  same  time  what  a temptation 
opium  smoking  is  to  the  Chinese,  and  what  havoc  it  would 
work  among  them,  is  indeed  very  disgraceful  and  very  crimi- 
nal. 

After  two  wars,  and  the  loss  of  many  thousands  of  lives, 
and  many  millions  of  treasure,  the  Chinese  Government  saw 
that  further  resistance  was  useless,  and  they  consented  to 
legalize  the  importation  of  “the foreign  poison,”  by  receiving 
a small  duty.  But  they  declare  that  they  yielded  only  to 
force,  and  they  have  continued  formally  and  definitely  to  ap- 
peal to  the  English  Government  and  Nation  for  permission 
to  prohibit  the  disastrous  trade,  or,  if  not  this,  to  be  at  least 
allowed  to  tax  the  opium  heavily  to  lessen  its  consumption. 
But  both  of  these  appeals  have  been  refused  by  the  English 
Government,  and  China’s  inalienable  rights  have  been 
trampled  in  the  dust. 

THE  BITTERNESS  TO  THE  MISSIONARIES. 

The  Rev.  A.  C.  Moule,  in  his  work  entitled  “ Four  Hundred 
Millions,”  says:  “One  is  ashamed  of  one’s  nationality  in 
China.  Foreign  nations  have  brought  curses,  and  not  bless- 
ings to  the  land — curses  which  the  prestige  of  martial  prow- 
ess, however  thoroughly  conceded,  cannot  obliterate.  The 
‘Arrow  ’ wars,  and  all  the  miserable  opium  history,  are  known 
but  too  well;  and  there  are  but  few  missionaries  who  have 
not  tasted  at  least  a little  of  the  bitterness  with  which  that 
history  has  caused  the  religion  preached  by  the  fellow-coun- 
trymen of  those  who  brought  the  plague  to  be  received.  Mis- 
sion hospitals,  opium  refuges, — here  in  Ningpo  the  expul- 
sion of  the  hated  Taepings,  as  well  as  many  individual  cases 
of  integrity  and  disinterestedness  in  foreigners,  have  done 


9 


something  locally  to  atone  for  this  evil,  and  raise  the  foreign 
name  ; but  in  the  national,  and  especially  political  feeling,  I 
suppose  fear  and  hatred,  hatred  and  fear,  rise  and  fall  contin- 
ually.” 

The  Rev.  Griffith  John,  a veteran  missionary  of  the  London 
Society,  says:  “The  selfish  and  unchristian  conduct  of  the 
British  Government  in  regard  to  the  opium  trade,  forms  a 
main  hindrance  to  the  progress  of  Christ’s  Kingdom  in  China, 
and  the  missionary  is  made  to  feel  constantly  and  deeply  that 
this  vile  trade,  with  its  disgraceful  history,  speaks  more  elo- 
quently and  convincingly  to  the  Chinese  mind  against 
Christianity,  than  he  does  or  can  do/br  it.” 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  SMALE. 

Sir  John  Smale,  for  twenty  years  the  Chief  Justice  of  Hong 
Kong,  has  recently  returned  to  England.  In  an  address  to 
the  Social  Science  Association,  he  spoke  of  the  opium 
traffic  as  “ That  trade  which  beyond  all  dispute  we  forced 
upon  China  and  the  Chinese  Government.  After  a not  care- 
less oulooking  for  more  than  twenty  years,  I have  come  to 
the  decided  conviction  that  the  opium  trade  has  spread  abroad 
unmitigated  evils  among  the  masses  of  the  Chinese  popula- 
tion, has  scandalized  the  good  among  the  Mandarins,  and  has 
demoralized  the  bad  among  them  ; it  has  greatly  lessened  the 
moral  power  of  England,  as  the  Missionary  of  even  the  lower 
stratum  of  our  Western  civilization,  and  it  has  all  but  annihi- 
lated the  influences  of  our  highest  moral  and  religious  convic- 
tions. I could  not  recur  to  my  reminiscences  of  Hong  Kong 
without  glancing  at  this  dark  aspect.” 

MISSIONARY  WORK  AMONG  OPIUM  SMOKERS.  # 

Lurid  indeed  are  the  pictures  which  England’s  own  sons 
draw  of  the  shameful  conduct  of  their  country,  and  its  awful 
results  in  China.  This  conduct  and  these  results  are  indeed 
very  formidable  obstacles  to  missionary  enterprise,  and  the 
progress  of  the  Christian  religion.  Comparatively  few  con- 
versions are  made  among  the  millions  of  opium  smokers.  The 
victims  of  no  vice  are  so  irreclaimable  as  are  the  elave§  of 
opium. 


10 


Some  who  are  thus  enslaved  may  expect  speedy  temporal 
death,  if  they  give  up  the  vice,  and  escape  eternal  death  by 
becoming  new  cgeatures  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  Rev.  Mr. 
Collins,  M.  D.,  refers  to  a touching  case  of  this  kind.  One 
of  his  candidates  for  baptism  had  given  up  opium  smoking, 
and  the  usual  dysentery  followed;  but  when  he  was  informed 
that  he  would  speedily  die  if  he  did  not  smoke  again,  he  re- 
plied, “ I am  willing  to  die,  but  not  to  smoke  again.  ” And 
die  he  did. 

THE  WOEK  IN  THE  NATION  AT  LARGE 

But  the  enforced  and  destructive  traffic  makes  the  mission, 
ary  work  exceedingly  difficult  also  in  the  nation  at  large,  and 
among  those  who  do  not  smoke  opium. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Moule,  in  his  paper  read  at  the  Newcastle 
Church  Congress,  entitled  The  Responsibility  of  the  Church 
as  regards  the  Opium  Traffic  with  China,  sajs,:  “England 
and  Christianity  are  united  in  Chinese  thought.  The  Chinese 
assume  that  every^foreigner  is  a Christian.  And  the  acts  of 
the  British  Government  are  supposed  to  be  the  expression  of 
Christian  morality.  If  the  policy  is  condemned,  Christianity 
is  condemned,” 

When  Dr.  Schereschewsky,  now  the  Bishop  of  our  China 
Mission,  was  stationed  at  Peking,  he  went  to  the  large  and 
ancient  city  of  Kaifengfu,  the  Capital  of  Honan  Province, 
hoping  to  stay  a few  days;  but  he  was  driven  out  of  the  city 
by  a mob,  which  followed  him,  shouting,  “ You  burned  our 
Emperor’s  palace,  you  sell  poison  to  the  people,  and  now  you 
come  to  teach  us  virtue  ! ” 

^ The  writer  of  this  sketch  experienced  some  of  the  bitterness 
and  opposition  caused  by  the  enforced  injurious  traffic,  es- 
pecially when  in  missionary  tours  in  the  province  of  Kiangsu. 

Our  grief  and  indignation  were  great  when  we  witnessed 
the  widespread  misery  and  ruin  wrought  by  this  English  made 
vice,  and  we  could  not  pass  an  opium  den  on  shore,  or  see 
an  opium  vessel  in  the  harbor  of  Shanghai,  without  the 
utmost  loathing  and  abhorrence  of  the  vile  trade.  Our 
horror  at  sight  of  the  latter  was  like  to  that  of  the  Mission- 
aries in  West  Africa,  forty  years  ago,  when  they  saw  the 


I 


11 


European  Slavers  on  tlie  coast;  for  the  West  African  slave 
trade  never  caused  such  extensive  physical  and  moral  ruin 
as  this  vast  and  deadly  opium  traffic. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Moule,  in  his  pamphlet  entitled  The  Opium 
Question,  says  : “ Rarely  does  a Chinese  crowd  in  city  or 
country  break  up  without  this  taunt  being  flung  at  the 
preacher  by  some  listener,  ‘ Who  brought  the  opium  ? Phy- 
sician heal  thyself!’  The  easy  and  ready  reply,  ‘ Who  smokes 
the  opium  ?’  is  sufficient  to  raise  a laugh,  and  often  to  silence 
the  opponent.  But  it  is  not  fair.  ‘Nay,’  replied  one  thus 
argued  with  a few  weeks  ago,  ‘ Nay,  it  is  not  true  ; you 
forced  it  in'  ” 

On  the  Eastern  seaboard  the  Chinese  understand  now  that 
Englishmen  are  most  to  blame.  The  Bishop  of  Victoria, 
(Hong  Kong),  said  at  the  Newcastle  Church  Congress,  that 
again  and  again,  while  preaching,  he  had  been  stopped  with 
the  question  “ Are  you  an  Englishman  ? Go  back  and  stop 
your  people  from  sending  opium,  and  then  come  and  talk  to 
us  about  Christianity.” 

A MEETING  BROKEN  UP. 

Canon  Stowell,  at  a recent  meeting  in  England,  said: 
“ One  of  our  missionaries  from  China  told  me  the  other 
day  that  he  was  in  a large  hall  crowded  with  three  or  four 
hundred  Chinese,  and  he  was  preaching  to  them.  They  were 
all  listening  attentively  and  eagerly,  when  a man  walked  up 
to  him  and  asked  him  whether  he  came  from  that  country 
that  introduced  the  poison  of  opium  into  their  country,  caus- 
ing so  much  ruin  and  misery.”  And  he  said  he  was  obliged 
to  admit  that  that  was  true.  Then  he  said,  “ The  man  told 
the  people,  ‘ Listen  no  longer  to  this  man;  what  these  people 
do  contradicts  what  they  say.’  And  all  the  people  rushed  in 
a moment  out  of  the  room,  making  the  most  frightful  shout- 
ings, and  standing  about  the  door  gesticulating  and  express- 
ing their  contempt  for  him.” 

ELOQUENT  DENUNCIATIONS. 

Sometimes  the  meetings  are  not  broken  up  until  the  people 
have  heard  eloquent  and  powerful  denunciations  from  intelli- 


gent  visitors.  “ Oh,  then,”  said  one  such  to  the  Rev.  John 
Macgowan,  of  Amoy,  “ your  object  in  coming  here  is  to  teach 
us  charity  and  benevolence,  and  truth  and  uprightness,  is  it  ? 
If  this  be  your  object,  then  why  is  it  that  you  yourselves  act 
in  a spirit  so  directly  the  reverse  of  these,  and  force  upon  us 
instead  your  abominable  opium  ? If  your  nation  believes  in 
these  doctrines  as  divine,  why  has  it  imported  this  poisonous 
stuff  to  bring  poverty  and  distress,  and  ruin  throughout  our 
land  ? ” 

“ As  he  went  on,”  says  the  missionary,  “ he  became  excited, 
and  his  eye  flashed,  and,  as  his  eloquence  grew,  Cninaman- 
like,  he  rolled  his  head  from  side  to’  side;  whilst  the  congre- 
gation, which  in  the  meantime  had  grown  largely,  looked  on 
with  approving  sympathy.” 

Mr.Magowan  admits  that  he  could  not  answer  the  man,“  and 
that  he  never  felt  so  uncomfortable  in  any  meeting  in  his  life 
before.”  The  man  clenched  his  argument  by  saying:  “There  is 
no  use  in  your  trying  to  get  out  of  the  matter  by  saying  that  you 
have  nothing  to  do  with  this  opium  system;  your  country  has. 
It  is  your  nation,  England,  that  is  responsible  for  all  the  ruin 
caused  by  opium.  It  was  the  English  guns  that  compelled 
our  Emperor  to  santion  the  trade,  and  it  is  through  England 
that  it  may  be  sold  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land,  without  our  Government  being  able  to  do  anything 
effectual  to  prevent  its  spread  throughout  the  kingdom.”* 

THE  CONSCIENCE  OE  CHKISTIANS  SHOULD  BE  ENLIGHTENED. 

Every  man  who  is  interested  in  the  spread  of  Christianity 
in  China,  should  raise  his  voice,  and  use  his  influence  against 
the  cruel  and  iniquitous  traffic.  The  Christian  conscience  not 
only  of  England,  but  also  of  the  world  needs  to  be  enlightened 
on  this  subject;  and  who  can  doubt  that  when  once  it  is  so, 
there  will  be  such  protests,  remonstrances,  and  powerful 
agitation,  that*  the  continuance  of  the  cruel  iniquity  will  be 
no  longer  possible. 

“ The  state  of  matters  is  this,”  says  the  Archbishop  of  York, 
“ that  the  Christian  nation  of  England  has  been  engaged  in 


* Missionary  Chronicle, 


13 


forcing  an  unwilling  nation  to  purchase  great  quantities  of 
poison  which  it  has  ^rown  fdi*  them,  and  has  not  scrupled  to 
go  to  war  even  to  enforce  what  I must  call  an  iniquitous  trade 
and  commerce.”  When  this  state  of  matters  and  its  fearful 
results  in  China,  and  they  are  not  now  confined  to  China, 
are  well  understood  by  the  Christian  world,  the  suppression  of 
the  infamous  and  deadly  traffic  must  take  place.  But  the  past 
teaches  us  that  it  will  not  be  till  then,  and  it  is  therefore  incum- 
bent upon  all  those  who  have  had  more  than  usual  opportuni- 
ties for  knowing  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  can  “ let  in  the 
light,”  to  do  so.  It  is  also  the  duty  of  all  Christian  editors, 
and  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  become  well  informed  upon 
this  most  important  and  most  burning  question  of  the  day, 
and  so  be  better  able  to  exert  a potent  influence  on  the  side  of 
justice  and  humanity,  the  claims  of  which  are  utterly  disre- 
garded by  the  upholders  of  England’s  “ national  abomina- 
tion,” as  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  rightly  calls  it. 

EFFORTS  FOR  THE  SUPPRESSION  OP  THE  TRAFFIC. 

This  truly  noble  Earl,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
Right  Hon.  John  Bright,  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson,  Sir  Joseph 
Pease,  Mr.  H.  Richard  and  other  Christian  and  humane  men, 
have  denounced  the  iniquity  in  Parliament,  and  moved  for  its 
discontinuance;  but  they  have  been  answered,  that  the  annual 
profits  of  forty  millions  of  dollars  from  the  Government’s 
virtual  monopoly  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the  opium, 
are  needed  for  revenue;  and  every  time  the  subject  has  been 
brought  forward  in  Parliament,  the  friends  of  justice  and 
humanity  have  been  outvoted.  And  yet  a special  committee 
of  the  House  of  Commons  in  1867,  delivercvd  its  judgment 
that  “ the  demoralizing  effects  of  the  opium  traffic  are  incon- 
testable and  inseparable  from  its  existence.” 

THE  BISHOP  OF  MANCHESTER  ON  THE  REVENUE  ARGUMENT. 

At  a large  and  enthusiastic  meeting  held  in  Free  Trade 
Hall,  Manchester,  a short  time  after  Lord  Hartington  had 
been  there  to  try  to  persuade  the  people  of  that  city  to  oppose 
the  anti-opium  agitation.  Dr.  Fraser,  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese, 
among  other  telling  things  in  his  important  speech,  related 
the  following  anecdote : 


14 


“ The  Roman  historian,  Suetonius,  said  that  the  Emperor 
Vespasian,  who  was  a rather  grasping  man,  and  tried  to  raise 
taxes  in  every  conceivable  manner,  laid  a tax  upon  sewage. 
His  son  Titus  was  somewhat  of  a dandy,  and  did  not  like  the 
idea.  When  the  first  silver  sesterces  were  brought  in,  Ves- 
♦ pasian  took  them  to  Titus,  and  held  them  under  his  nose, 
saying,  ‘ Do  they  smell  ? ’ (Laughter.)  In  one  way,  of  course, 
they  did  not  smell,  but  he  thought  that  a revenue  raised  as 
the  opium  revenue  was  raised,  should  stink  in  the  nostrils  of 
the  English  people.  (Cheers).” 

And  yet  the  London  Times  says  that  if  the  moral  objections 
to  the  opium  traffic  were  even  greater  than  they  are,  the 
Government  would  not  be  justified  in  sacrificing  this  revenue! 

Like  some  members  of  Parliament,  the  leading  journal 
concedes  the  immorality  of  the  opium  traffic,  and  yet,  like 
them,  it  defends  it,  for  filthy  lucre’s  sake.  A sorry  spectacle  ! 

EXAGGERATION  OP  THE  FINANCIAL  DIFFICULTY. 

But  even  the  financial  difficulties  of  abolishing  the  traffic 
are  evidently  greatly  exaggerated.  Sir  Bartle  Frere,  long 
time  Governor  of  Bombay,  and  Sir  Arthur  Cotton,  for  fifty 
years  Engineer-in-Chief  of  the  Government  Works  in  India, 
assert  that  the  trade  could  be  at  once  abolished  without  any 
but  slight  and  temporary  financial  embarrassment;  and  the 
fact  that  Major  Baring,  the  Indian  Treasurer, has  very  recently 
reported  that  there  is  a surplus  of  three  millions  of  dollars, 
and  that,  too,  so  soon  after  the  great  burden  of  the  Afghanis- 
tan war  expenses,  seems  to  prove  that  they  are  correct. 

But  even  if  they  are  not  quite  so,  the  deficiency  could 
doubtless  be  made  good  by  devoting  those  seven  hundred 
thousand  acres  to  sugar,  tea  and  quinine  raising,  instead  of 
continuing  the* perversion  of  them  to  the  banoful  opium.  The 
present  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Bengal,  Captain  Markham, 
and  other  competent  authorities  assert  that  the  three  products 
named  are  exceedingly  profitable  to  the  cultivators  of  them 
in  India. 

CROPS  bF  POISON  INSTEAD  OF  FOOD  CROPS. 

Or  if  the  vast  perverted  area  was  to  be  reverted  to  food 
cereals,  though  the  profits  might  not  be  so  great,  the  periodic 
famines  in  India  would  be  less,  for  it  is  this  perversion  from 


15 


food  crops  to  crops  of  poison  that  is  a main  cause  of  these 
famines.  So  testified,  before  a Parliamentary  Committee  in 
1871,  the  late  Dr.  John  Wilson,  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Bombay,  a man  as  distinguished  for  his  learning  as 
for  his  conscientiousness.  Many  others  have  given  similar 
testimony. 

Among  the  most  recent  items  of  intelligence  from  India,  is 
one  that  the  Viceroy  is  engaged  in  raising  a permanent  fund 
for  the  benefit  of  the  suffei'ers  from  these  periodic  famines. 
This  is  creditable  and  praiseworthy,  but  a much  wiser  and 
more  far-reaching  benevolence  would  be  the  course  we  have 
alluded  to,  and  which  is  demanded  not  only  by  justice  to- 
wards the  much  injured  Chinese,  but  also  by  a regard  for  the 
welfare  of  the  Hindoos,  who  are  not  only  subjected  to  these 
famines,  but  also  to  other  and  greater  demoralization  by  the 
infamous  opium  business. 

INJURY  TO  THE  HINDOOS. 

Not  only  have  English  clerical  and  lay  residents  in  the  opium 
producing  districts  written  about  the  injury  done  to  the 
thousands  of  Hindoos  who,  under  English  supervision, 
grow  the  poppies  and  make  the  opium,  but  even  an 
agent  of  the  East  India  Company,  Mr.  Sym,  testified  that 
“ wherever  opium  is  grown  it  is  eaten,  and  the  more  it  is 
grown  the  more  it  is  eaten  . . . We  are  demoralizing  our 

own  subjects  in  India.  Half  of  the  crimes  in  the  Opium  Dis- 
tricts— murders,  rapes,  and  affrays — have  their  origin  in 
opium  eating.” 

Sir  Cecil  Beadon  and  Dr.  George  Smith,  both  long  resident 
in  India,  bore  testimony  to  this  demoralization  of  the  Hindoos 
before  a Parliamentary  Committee  in  1871. 

Then,  too,  the  impoverishment  and  ruin  of  so  many  millions 
of  the  Chinese  by  the  pestilent  thing,  greatly  injures  British 
and  American  legitimate  trade  with  China,  and  even  some  . 
British  Chambers  of  Commerce  have  passed  resolutions  con- 
demnatory of  the  traffic  from  a mere  commercial  point  of 
view.  “ Send  us  less  of  your  opium  ” writes  the  I'aoutai,  or 
chief  native  official  at  Shanghai,  “ and  we  will  be  able  to  take 
more  of  your  manufactures,” 


16 


Dr.  Williamson  well  says  that  the  forcing  of  opium  into 
China  “was  not  merely  a sin,  but  a commercial  mistake.”  It 
has  led  to  “a  crippled  commerce,  and  the  malediction  of  a 
great  nation.” 

From  whatever  point  of  view  the  opium  traffic  is  considered, 
it  is  seen  to  be  a thing  to  be  abhorred  by  all  right-minded 
people.  Never  were  the  advocates  of  any  system  placed  in  a 
worse  predicamant  than  the  upholders  of  England’s  wicked 
opium  policy. 

THE  CHARGE  OF  INSINCERITY. 

But,  say  some  of  them,  the  Chinese  Government  and  Nation 
are  not  now  sincere,  however  they  may  have  been  in  the  past, 
for  opium  is  now  largely  produced  in  China  itself. 

It  is  true  that  the  fostering  and  forcing  of  the  vice  by  Eng 
land  has  resulted  in  there  being  such  an  immense  number  of 
victims,  and  such  a tempting  market  for  the  baneful  stuff, 
that  unprincipled  men  are  engaged  in  producing  it,  and  un- 
faithful officials  are  conniving  at  the  illegality — for  a con- 
sideration. But  as  at  the  beginning,  the  connivers  at,  and  the 
aiders  and  abettors  of  the  foreign  opium  smugglers  were 
often  severely  punished,  the  most  incorrigible  of  them  even 
to  execution,  so  it  has  been  with  the  producers  of  the  Chinese 
opium,  and  their  aiders  and  abettors. 

And  yet  as  the  native  article  can  be  very  profitably  fur- 
nished at  so  much  lower  rate  than  the  foreign  traders  sell  the 
Indian  opium,  its  production  is  on  the  increase,  and  many  of 
the  native  officials  and  others  are  wearying  of  the  contest 
with  both  the  foreign  and  the  native  drug,  and  are  saying, 
that  as  England  compels  us  to  admit  and  legalize  her  opium, 
we  may  as  well  legalize  the  native  article,  and  thus  obtain  an 
immense  revenue  for  the  Government,  after  the  manner  of 
the  American  and  European  Governments  with  ardent 
. spirits. 

They  say  that  the  country  is  drained  of  from  eighty  to  one 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  annually  for  the  benefit  of  the 
British  Government  of  India  and  the  foreign  traders,  and  that 
the  vast  profits  of  this  trade  ought  to  accrue  to  the  Chinese  if 
the  traffic  is  to  go  on. 


17 


Others  say  let  us  encourage  the  native  production  all  we 
can,  and  thus  by  its  greater  cheapness  kill  the  foreign  trade, 
and  when  this  latter  is  done,  we  can  more  effectually  take  the 
native  product  in  hand. 

POSITION  OF  THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT. 

But  the  Imperial  Government,  with  the  approbation  of  its 
best  subjects,  resists  this  specious  reasoning,  as  it  does  also 
the  tempting  money  offer  of  the  former  class  of  advocates  ; 
and  yet  it  is  embarrassed  by  both  these  parties.  Not  only  is 
there  discord  between  some  of  the  Governors  of  the  Provin- 
ces and  the  district  officials,  but  some  of  the  Governors  them, 
selves  are  only  half  hearted  supporters  of  the  National  policy. 
But  the  Imperial  Government  remains  as  firm  against  the 
native,  as  it  was  against  the  foreign  poisonous  stuff,  and  it 
still  desires  the  suppression  of  the  trade  in  both. 

As  illustrative  of  its  present  temper  we  note  the  appoint- 
ment of  Tso  Tsung  Tang  to  the  important  Vice-Royalty  of 
Nanking.  He  has  been  Governor  of  one  of  the  North-West- 
ern Provinces  for  some  years,  and  has  been  suppressing  in  the 
most  energetic  and  determined  manner,  the  native  production 
of  opium  in  that  Province.  A man  of  a similar  spirit  has 
been  appointed  to  the  Governorship  of  the  Foo-chow  Pro- 
vince. 

As  regards  the  foreign  article,  note  the  fact  that  when  any 
foreign  nation  desires  a revision  of  an  old,  or  the  making  of  a 
new  treaty,  every  endeavor  is  made  by  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment to  have  the  citizens  of  that  country  prohibited  from  im- 
porting into,  or  buying  and  selling  opium  in  China,  and  this 
has  been  conceded  in  the  new  Russian  and  United  States 
treaties. 

The  Chinese  Chief  authorities  say  that  they  could  deal 
much  more  effectually  with  the  native  production  if  they 
could  only  keep  out  the  foreign  importation,  and  the  refusal 
of  England  to  permit  its  exclusion  is  a great  outrage — a far 
greater  one  than  if  she  should  go  to  war  with  France  just 
now,  because  the  latter  does  not  want  Manchfl^er  an^ 
other  English  goods  except  on  her  own  terms. 


18 


BIB  BUTHBBFOBD  A.LCOCK. 

But  Sir  Rutherford  Alcock  makes  the  extraordinary  state- 
ment that  the  Chinese  Government  and  Nation  have  been 
insincere  from  the  beginning.  The  article  in  the  December 
number  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  in  which  he  makes  this, 
and  other  remarkable  statements,  was  read  by  us  with  aston- 
ishment, as  it  must  also  have  been  by  all  readers  who  were 
familiar  with  this  gentleman’s  previous  record. 

’^hen  he  returned  to  England  in  1871,  after  long  official 
life'in  China,  first  as  Consul  at  Shanghai,  and  then  as  Minister 
at  Peking,  he  testified  before  a Committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons  that  “opium  had  been  forced  upon  the  Government 
of  China;  ” that  “it  was  no  wonder  that  they  complained  of 
such  conduct ; ” that  he  believed  that  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment were  “ perfectly  sincere  in  their  desire  to  put  an  end  to 
the  consumption  of  opium;  ” but  that  if  they  were  “ to  at- 
tempt to  exclude  it,  they  must  he  prepared  to  fight  for  it." 

In  his  Nineteenth  Century  article  he  sets  himself  to  refute 
himself  on  all  these  points,  though  the  facts,  of  course,  were 
the  same  in  1881  as  they  were  in  1871,  except  that  there  was 
added  the  additional  disgraceful  fact  to  England,  that  she 
refused  to  ratify  the  treaty  of  1876,  of  which  we  will  make 
mention  further  on.  The  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  this 
eccentric  and  contradictory  witness  was  right  at  the  former 
period,  and  wrong,  egregiously  wrong  in  December  last. 

An  able  confutation  of  Sir  Rutherford’s  attempt  to  refute 
himself  appeared  in  the  Contemporary  for  April,  from 

the  pen  of  Mr.  B.  Fossett  Lock.  At  the  conclusion  of  his 
article,  this  writer  asks  the  Ex-Minister  to  China  to  state  why 
he  has  changed  his  mind  and  desires  public  opinion  to  follow 
him  in  his  right-about-face  movement. 

BT.  HON.  W.  B.  GLADSTONE. 

We  have  the  highest  possible  English  authority  that  the 
pestilent  article  was  forced  upon-  the  Chinese,  and  that  the 
traffic  is  an  abominable  one.  At  the  time  of  the  first  Opium 
War,  Mr.  Gladstone  said:  “They  (the  Chinese)  had  a 
perfect  right  to  drive  you  from  their  coast,  on  account  of  your 
obstinacy  in  persisting  in  this  infamous  and  atrocious  traffic. 


10 


A war  more  unjust  in  its  origin,  a war  more  calculated  to 
cover  this  country  with  permanent  disgrace  I do  not  know, 
and  I have  not  read  of.” 

He  has  recently  said  that  he  has  no  word  of  his  speech  on 
this  occasion  to  retract. 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  wickedest  of  wars,  fifteen  millions 
of  dollars  were  demanded  and  received  by  the  English  for  the 
expenses  of  it,  and  six  millions  for  the  contraband  opium 
which  the  Chinese  Commissioner  had  justly  seized  and 
destroyed. 

iNCKEASE  OP  England’s  permanent  disgrace. 

Since  Mr.  Gladstone’s  forcible  and  richly  deserved  words 
were  used,  England’s  “ permanent  disgrace  ” has  been  much 
increased  by  a second  opium  war,  and  by  her  refusal  to  this 
hour  to  permit  China  to  prohibit  the  “ infamous  and  atrocious 
traffic,”  or  even  to  tax  heavily  the  death-dealing  drug  to  lessen 
its  consumption. 

At  the  Cheefoo  Convention,  six  years  ago,  the  English  Min- 
ister, Sir  Thomas  Wade,  agreed  that  the  Chinese  should  raise 
the  tariff  one-half  on  condition  that  certain  additional  ports  be 
opened,  and  that  Englishmen  be  permitted  to  travel  every 
where  in  China,  and  be  protected  by  the  native  authorities. 
The  Chinese  kept  their  part  of  the  compact,  but  the  English 
Government  has  refused  to  ratify  this  treaty  because  of  the 
increased  duty  on  the  opium.  England  quickly  availed  herself 
of  all  the  Chinese  conceded,  and  the  latter  had  the  mortification 
of  seeing  the  “ foreign  poison  ” poured  into  the  newly  opened 
ports  and  at  the  very  low  rate  of  duty.* 

What  international  wrong-doing  is  comparable  to  that 
which  England  has  for  more  than  fifty  years  been  practising 
towards  China — first  in  defending  the  smugglers  of  her  opium; 
then  in  open  wars,  and  lastly  in  a crooked  diplomacy  ? 

When  the  grievances  of  Ireland  are  redressed,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  Mr.  Gladstone’s  attention  will  be  given  to  the 

*Our  Government  has  refused  to  ratify  so  much  of  the  convention  as  Imposes 
obligations  on  itself,  while  it  has  rigidly  enforced  all  that  Imposes  obligations  on  the 
Chinese. — Mr.  B.  Fossett  Lock,  In  Contemporary  Bevievi,  for  April. 

If  the  Chefoo  Convention  be  not  ratified,  the  reputation  for  international  honesty 
of  both  political  parties  in  England  will  be  irrretrievably  damaged.  It  may  possibly 
be  too  late  soon,  and  we  may  be  dragged  into  another  unrighteous  war. — Ibid. 


fearful  injustice  towards  China — an  injustice  compared  with 
which  any  heretofore  shown  towards  Ireland,  or  any  other 
country,  is  but  as  a drop  in  a bucket, 

DR.  H.  H,  KANR’S  STATBMEWTS. 

And  now  we  come  to  what  very  immediately  concerns  our- 
selves, and  calls  for  prompt  attention  and  action  on  the  part 
of  our  own  statesmen.  Dr.  H.  H.  Kane,  of  New  York  city, 
whose  investigations  and  published  works  have  been  mainly 
on  the  various  drugs  that  enslave  men,  and  who  during  the 
last  four  or  five  years  has  been  specially  engaged  in  the  treat- 
ment of  American  victims  of  opium  smoking,  has  recently 
published,  through  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons,  a very  valuable 
work  entitled  Opium  Smoking  in  America  and  China^  which 
deserves  to  be  read  by  every  American  citizen.  In  it  he  well 
says:  “ The  Chinese  smokers  themselves  are  not  free  from 
blame,  but  every  honest  observer  must  believe  that  if  China 
had  been  allowed  to  have  her  own  way  the  vice,  to-day,  would 
be  nearly  dead.” 

But  through  England’s  wicked  coercive  policy  there  are  not 
only  many  millions  of  victims  in  China,  but  the  Chinese  are 
carrying  this  English-made  vice  to  the  many  countries  to 
which  they  are  going,  and  the  inhabitants  of  these  countries 
are  learning  the  vice  from  them.  This,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  is 
true  of  our  own  countrymen. 

SIX  THOUSAND  AMERICAN  OPIUM  SMOKERS. 

The  first  American  began  to  smoke  opium  in  San  Francisco, 
in  1868,  and  the  second  in  1871;  and  now  says  Dr.  Kane, 
there  are  at  least  six  thousand  American  men  and  women  in 
all  classes  of'society,  who  are  the  slaves  of  the  vice,  and  the 
number  of  victims  is  rapidly  increasing.  “ At  the  present 
day,”  he  says,”  “ almost  every  town  of  any  note  in  the  United 
States,  and  more  especially  those  in  the  West  have  their 
smoking  dens  ond  habitues.  Even  the  little^  frontier  towns 
and  mining  camps  have  their  layouts  and  their  devotees. 
Arrests  are  being  constantly  made  in  San  Francisco,  Virginia 
City,  New  Orleans,  and  occasionally  in  Chicago.” 

The  legislature  of  Nevada  has  passed  severe  measures  of 
repression,  and  the  vice  has  been  somewhat  checked  in  that 


State;  but  in  California  they  are  less  severe,  and  there  the 
victims  are  increasing  in  number.  These  are  the  only  States 
that  have  as  yet  taken  action. 

OPIUM  DENS  IN  NEW  YOEK  CITY. 

Nothing  seems  to  be  done  in  New  York  City  to  suppress 
the  many  opium  dens.  These  are  found  in  Mott,  Pearl  and 
Park  Streets,  in  Second  and  Fourth  Avenues  and  in  Twenty- 
third  Street.  Not  only  in  those  kept  by  Americans,  but  also 
in  those  whose  proprietors  are  Chinamen,  American  men 
and  women  may  be  seen,  some  of  them  engaged  in  smoking 
the  opium,  and  others  lying  in  a state  of  stupor  in  the  rows 
of  bunks  or  “ layouts”  found  there.  A painful  and  repulsive 
spectacle. 

“It  is  thus  seen,”  says  Dr.  Kane,  “ how  fascinating  a habit 
that  of  opium-smoking  is,  and  with  what  rapidity  it  is  spread- 
ing all  over  the  country,  ensnaring  individuals  in  all  classes 
of  society,  leading  to  the  downfall  of  innocent  girls  and  the 
debasement  of  married  woman,” 

Our  country  needs  to  be  aroused  concerning  the  insidious, 
but  cruel  foe  which  has  entered  it  through  the  Golden  Gate ; 
and  the  most  severe  repressive  and  prohibitory  measures  are 
necessary,  not  only  on  the  part  of  the  State  Governments,  but 
also  of  the  general  Government. 

PRESIDENT  ARTHUR  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES  CONGRESS. 

President  Arthur,  in  his  message  to  Congress  four  months 
ago,  urged  the  enforcement  of  the  stipulations  of  the  new 
Chinese  treaties,  and  stated  that  those  regarding  the  opium 
trade  would  undoubtedly  receive  the  approval  of  Congress, 
“ thus  attesting  the  sincere  interest  the  American  people 
and  Government  feel  in  the  efforts  of  the  Chinese  to  stop 
that  demoralizing  and  destructive  traffic.”  Congress  did  ap- 
prove and  American  citizens  are  prohibited  from  importing 
opium  into  China;  but  it  is  just  as  necessary  to  prevent  them 
and  the  citizens  of  all  other  countries  from  bringing  the  smok- 
ing opium  into  the  United  States. 

LARGE  IMPORTATION  OP  SMOKING- OPIUM. 

This  smoking  opium,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  a much 
more  potently  poisonous  preparation  than  ordinary  opium. 


On  the  latter  our  Government  levies  only  one  dollar  pef 
pound,  but  on  the  smoking  opium  six  dollars.  But  this  duty 
is  as  truly  blood  money  as  that  which  the  English  make  by  the 
growth  and  manufacture  of  opium  in  India,  and  its  enforced 
sale  in  China.  More  than  seventy  thousand  pounds  of  the  smok- 
ing opium  were  imported  into  the  United  States  in  1880,  and 
there  is  an  increase  of  thousands  of  pounds  each  year — sad 
proof  of  the  growth  of  the  vice  among  Americans. 

We  believe  that  very  few  of  our  people  and  not  many  of 
our  law-makers  in  the  Eastern  States  know  what  is  going  on 
at  San  Francisco,  and  the  present  extent  and  rapid  increase 
of  the  vice,  and  the  facts  should  be  published  as  widely  as 
possible.  Each  one  of  our  State  Legislatures  should  speedily 
pass  repressive  enactments,  as  the  one  hundred  thousand 
Chinese  now  in  our  country  are  going  into  all  the  States,  and 
twenty  thousand  of  them  are  opium  smokers,  and  even  where 
“ dens  ” are  not  opened  by  them,  American  young  men  and 
women  learn  the  vice  at  their  laundries  and  other  places. 

ACTION  BY  THE  GENERAL  GOVERNMENT  NECESSARY. 

Corresponding  action  must  be  taken  by  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Repfesentatives  at  Washington,  and  the  Government 
not  to  be  allowed  to  receive  duty  on  the  abominable  smoking 
opium,  and  its  exclusion  from  the  country  must  be  absolute. 
The  baggage  of  the  Chinese  coming  here  must  be  examined, 
and  all  opium  which  is  found  concealed  among  it  be  destroyed, 
and  the  smoking  apparatus  taken  possession  of,  and  the 
resuming  of  the  habit  while  in  this  country  should  be  made  a 
criminal  offence. 

We  are  not  in  favor  of  excluding  any  class  of  foreigners 
from  our  country  except  the  criminal  class,  but  we  consider 
opium  smokers  as  belonging  to,,  this  class  ; and  our  country 
must  so  consider  and  treat  them  if  an  immense  number  of  our 
people  are  to  be  saved  from  the  appalling  ruin  which  has 
already  overtaken  so  many  millions  of  the  Chinese. 

“ Viewed  from  any  standpoint,”  says  Dr.  Kane,  “ The 
practice  of  opium  smoking  is  filthy  and  disgusting;  is  a reef 
that  is  bound  to  sink  morality;  is  a curse  to  the  parent,  the 
child,  and  the  government;  is  a fertile  cause  of  crime,  lying. 


23 


insanity,  debt,  and  suicide;  is  a poison  to  hope  and  ambition; 
a sunderer  of  family  ties;  a destroyer  of  bodily  and  mental 
function ; and  a thing  to  be  viewed  with  abhorrence  by  every 
honest  man  and  every  virtuous  woman.” 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  our  nation  will  speedily  show  its 
abhorrence  by  severe  repressive  and  prohibitory  measures, 
and  by  seeing  that  these  measures  are  faithfully  carried  out. 

THE  PRESENT  INDICATIONS. 

The  indications  are,  that  unless  Christian  people  are  alert 
and  active  against  this  comparatively  new  and  fascinating 
vice,  it  will  be  a greater  obstruction  to  Christianity  and  the 
welfare  of  the  human  race  in  the  future,  than  alcohol  has 
been  in  the  past,  and  the  Upas  tree  which  the  East  India 
Company  planted  in  China,  and  England  violently  defended, 
and  which  has  now  attained  such  vast  proportions,  will  spread 
its  deadly  branches  the  wide  world  over.  Against  such  a 
calamity  all  Christian  people  should  earnestly  pray  and  labor, 
and  they  should  be  aided  by  all  who  have  any  regard  for  the 
welfare  of  mankind. 

If  the  extensive  poisoning  of  China  and  portions  of  India 
continues,  the  whole  human  race  may  be  more  directly  and 
more  deeply  affected  than  is  implied  in  the  following  excel- 
lent words  from  a recent  speech  of  the  Archbishop  of  York ; 

“ This  is  a question  affecting  the  whole  of  the  human  race 
for  whom  Christ  died.  It  affects  this  great  country  in  its 
honor  and  its  consistency;  it  affects  the  population  of  China 
more  vitally  still.  We  are  bound  by  the  example  of  One 
who  went  about  the  world  doing  good,  and  if  we  go  about 
the  world  doing  evil  we  are  not  only  not  with  Him,  but  we 
are  against  Him,  and  He  will,  according  to  His  law,  cast  us 
out.  He  loves  all  the  people  of  the  world  alike,  and  we  can’t 
sit  down  as  some  statesmen  have  done  by  saying,  ‘ Oh,  we 
would  abolish  this  trade  if  we  could,  but  then  consider  the 
revenue.’  Words  like  those  have  occurred  in  speeches,  and 
even  in  public  documents  put  forth  in  this  country.  We,  as 
Christian  ministers  have  nothing  to  do  with  that;  though  the 
whole  of  the  revenue  of  India,  from  end  to  end,  depended  en- 
tirely on  the  opium  traffic,  if  it  is  a sinful  and  a wrong  traffic, 


24 


we  are  bound  to  protest  against  it,  and  to  seek  other  ways  in 
which  revenue  of  some  sort  can  be  supplied.  It  is  not  a 
matter  which  we  can  afford  any  longer  to  treat  with  indiffe- 
rence; we  will  approach  the  Crown  in  every  way  that  lies  in 
our  power,  and  we  will  express  our  opinion  that  the  time  has 
come  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements  for  the  suppression 
of  this  iniquitous  traffic.” 

THB  URGENT  DUTY  OF  MISSIONARY  SOCIETIES. 

About  a year  ago,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Strachan  left  his  important 
labors  in  India,  to  return  for  a while  to  England.  On  his 
way,  he  visited  the  various  countries  on  the  seaboard  from 
India  to  Japan,  and  from  the  latter  country  took  a steamship 
for  San  Francisco.  Not  long  after  his  arrival  in  England, 
he  was  appointed  to  the  Bishopric  of  Rangoon.  He  has  pub- 
lished a record  of  his-  travels,  under  the  title  of  “ From  East 
to  West  ” From  the  account  of  his  visit  to  Shanghai  we  ex- 
tract the  following: — 

“Just  opposite  our  hotel  (the  Central  Hotel)  the  opium 
barge  was  moored.  It  was  very  neat  and  clean,  and  looked 
very  harmless,  though  it  contained  the  most  deadly  curse  that 
has  ever  visited  the  Chinese  shores.  For  the  first  time  in  my 
life  I felt  ashamed  of  being  a Briton.  I feel  sure  that  the 
people  of  England  have  only  to  be  made  fully  acquainted 
with  the  truth  respecting  the  introduction  and  maintenance 
of  this  iniquitous  traffic  to  raise  a cry  of  indignation,  that  no 
plea  of  financial  necessity,  of  political  policy,  will  be  able  to 
withstand.  And  it  seems  to  me  to  be  the  urgent  duty  of  the 
Missionary  Societies  to  make  most  strenuous  efforts  for  the 
removal  of  this,  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  advance  of 
Christ’s  Kingdom  in  the  Chinese  Empire.” 

We  suppose  that  there  are  not  any  of  these  societies  that 
would  say  that  they  have  made,  “ strenuous  efforts  ” for  the 
removal  of  this  most  formidable  hindrance  to  the  success  of 
the  missionary  work  in  China,  and  that  many  of  them  must 
say  that  they  have  not  made  any  special  efforts  at  all;  and 
yet,  surely,  as  the  present  Bishop  of  Rangoon  says,  it  is  their 
• ‘ urgent  duty  ” to  do  all  they  can, 


25 


One  of  the  most  effectual  methods,  no  doubt,  would  be  the 
formation  of  a deputation,  consisting  of  one  or  two  delegates 
from  each  American  and  German,  as  well  as  English  Society 
having  missionaries  in  China,  to  wait  upon  and  present  a 
memorial  to  the  Queen. 

FORMER  INTERNATIONAL  DEPUTATIONS. 

The  past  shows  that  such  international  deputations  are  a 
powerful  means  for  accomplishing  a proposed  end. 

Bishop  Mcllvaine,  and  other  distinguished  Americans, 
joined  with  Anglican,  French  and  German  delegates  in  pre- 
senting a memorial  to  the  late  Czar  concerning  the  persecuted 
Protestants  in  Finland,  and  success  crowned  the  effort.  A 
few  years  later  a similar  international  deputation  waited  upon 
the  Empei’or  of  Austria  in  behalf  of  the  Protestants  subjected 
to  persecution  in  that  empire,  and  more  liberal  regulations 
were  adopted. 

But  what  was  the  persecution  of  these  few  Protestants  in 
comparison  to  the  extensive  misery  and  ruin  caused  by  Eng- 
land’s enforced  opium  traffic  with  China  ? Myriads  are  sent 
by  it  each  year  to  the  opium-smoker’s  grave,  and  millions  are 
living  the  wretched  opium  smoker’s  life,  and  the  greatest 
possible  obstacle  is  raised  to  Christian  Missions. 

Even  if  success  did  not  for  some  time  crown  the  effort,  it 
would  at  once  powerfully  aid  in  arousing  the  attention  and 
inquiry  of  the  Christian  world,  and  one  sure  result  would  he 
that  better  knowledge  of  the  subject  which  is  the  pressing 
need. 

The  fact  that  many  of  our  own  people  are  now  being  in- 
volved in  the  wide  spread  misery  and  ruin  caused  by  the  vast 
scale  on  which  the  Imperial  Government  of  Great  Britain  and 
India  manufacture  and  sell  the  deadly  article,  is  an  additional 
reason  why  our  country  should  be  well  represented  in  such  a 
deputation.  If  this  method  is  not  adopted  some  other  should 
be,  and  that  without  delay.  During  the  last  two  or  three 
years  there  has  been  a large  increase  in  the  area  devoted  by 
the  Anglo-Indian  Government  to  the  growth  of  opium,  and 
every  effort  is  being  made  by  some  of  the  authorities  in  India 
to  “ push  ” the  odious  and  destructive  trade. 


26 


THE  ENGLISH  BISHOPS  AND  OTHERS. 

The  venerable  Dr.  Moberly,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  writing 
in  October  last,  said : “ I feel  the  utmost  repugnance  to  the 
traffic,  and  cannot  but  regard  the  action  of  the  English  nation 
in  upholding  it  as  an  offence  against  public  morality  and  the 
comity  of  nations.”  Similar  sentiments  have  been  expressed 
by  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  York  and  Dublin  ; by  the 
English  Bishops  generally;  by  Deans  Howson,  Church,  and 
Payne  Smith;  Canons  Liddon,  Hoare  and  Knox-Little;  the 
Revs.  C.  H.  Spurgeon,  Newman  Hall,  Alexander  Maclaren, 
Professor  Cairns,  and  numerous  other  distinguished  clergy- 
men. 

The  Convocation  of  York  last  year,  with  but  one  dissen- 
tient voice,  and  no  opposing  vote,  condemned  the  traffic,  and 
the  position  of  the  English  Government. 

On  May  9th,  1882,  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol 
moved  the  following  resolution  in  the  Upper  House  of  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbui’y:  “That  the  effect  of  the  opium 
trade  as  now  carried  on  between  India  and  China  is  not  con- 
sistent with  Christian  and  international  morality,  and  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  this  country  to  put  an  end  to  the  opium  trade 
as  now  conducted,  and  to  support  the  Chinese  in  their  efforts 
to  suppress  the  traffic.”  The  Bishop  of  Winchester  seconded 
the  resolution,  which  was  supported  by  the  Bishop  of  Lin- 
coln, and  carried  unanimously. 

OTHER  CHRISTIAN  BODIES. 

The  Methodist  ..^Ecumenical  Conference  also  adopted  a 
resolution  denunciatory  of  the  trade,  and  calling  “ upon  the 
Government  to  deliver  the  country  fi-om  all  further  responsi- 
bility arising  from  such  an  iniquitous  traffic.” 

Similar  resolutions  have  been  passed  by  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  the  Synod  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England, 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  the 
Baptist  Union,  the  Congregational  Union,  the  Society  of 
Friends,  and  other  bodies. 

A petition  to  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  subject  was 
signed  by  Cardinal  Manning  and  nearly  all  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Bishops  of  England  and  Wales. 


27 


THB  MISSIOSTABIES  IN  CHINA  AND  INDIA. 

The  verdict  of  the  Missionaries  in  China  is  unanimous  in 
regard  to  the  ruinous  results  of  the  opium  traffic,  the  dishon- 
orable conduct  of  the  English  Government,  and  the  very  for- 
midable obstacle  presented  to  Christian  Missions. 

About  three  months  ago  there  was  received  in  London  a 
Petition  to  the  House  of  Commons  against  the  Opium  Trade, 
signed  by  the  Bishop  of  Bombay,  and  three  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  Missionaries  and  Chaplains  in  India.  Among 
other  things  this  Petition  ; 

“ Humbly  Sheweth,  That  the  Opium  Traffic  has  been  at- 
tended by  very  great  evils  both  in  India  and  China.  In  cor- 
roboration of  this  the  attention  of  your  Honorable  House  is 
directed  to  the  report  of  the  Chief  Commissioner  of  British 
Burmah  for  1881. 

“ That  the  Indian  Government,  especially  by  its  action  in 
Bengal,  is  responsible  for  the  increased  consumption  of  the 
drug  in  India  itself,  and  the  disastrous  results  in  Burmah  and 
China. 

“ That  all  attempts  to  justify  the  traffic  in  opium,  on  the 
ground  of  its  being  necessary  as  a means  of  raising  revenue 
for  the  Indian  Government,  seem  to  imply  the  setting  aside 
of  moral  obligation  and  the  adoption  ot  the  degrading  prin- 
ciple that  everything  is  legitimate  which  appears  to  promote 
self-interest.” 

SIR  GEORGE  BIRDWOOD. 

But  the  conflict  is  an  arduous,  and  may  be  a lengthy  one  ; 
for  there  are,  and  no  doubt  will  continue  to  be  many  adver- 
saries. It  may  be  well  to  notice  some  who  have  very  recent- 
ly defended  the  traffic. 

Sir  George  Bird  wood,  who  is  employed  in  a subordinate 
position  in  the  India  Office  in  London,  wrote  an  article  for 
The  Times  eight  months  ago,  in  which  he  maintained  that 
opium  smoking  was  harmless,  for  he  had  tried  it  himself — 
“ as  harmless  as  twiddling  your  thumbs.”  He  condemns  the 
efforts  of  the  Chinese  Government  to  suppress  it  as  “ des- 
potic.”* The  North  China  Herald,  the  leading  English  paper 
in  China,  and  one  not  at  all  under  the  influence  of  the  mis- 

♦Sir  George  Bird  wood  wrote  in  May  retracting  some  of  his  most  important  state- 
ments, and  acknowledging  that  he  was  wrong. 


28 


sionaries,  or  disposed  to  take  other  than  what  it  calls  “ a 
moderate  view  of  the  much-vexed  opium  question,”  thus  dis- 
poses of  the  most  ridiculous  article  which  has  yet  appeared  in 
the  controversy: — 

“We  regard  this  as  rubbish  of  the  purest  type,  and  disbe- 
lieve it  flatly.  Nobody  before,  as  far  as  we  know,  has  ever 
ventured  to  deny  the  evil  efiects — moral  and  physical — of 
opium-smoking.  Every  man  with  his  eyes  open  knows  per- 
fectly well  that,  among  the  Chinese  at  all  events,  the  results 
of  opium-smoking  are  fatal  and  deadly;  that  the  practice  is 
condemned  as  on  a par  with  the  grossest  sensuality,  by  all 
Chinese  moralists;  and  that  no  man  feels  the  burden  and 
agony  of  the  opium  despot  more  keenly  than  those  who  are 
in  slavery  to  it.  We  do  not  mean  to  be  flippant  when  we  ex- 
press an  opinion  that  Sir  George  Birdwood  would  have  been 
far  better  employed  in  twiddling  his  own  thumbs  than  in 
writing  such  mischievous  nonsense  to  a leading  paper.” 

OPIUM  WORSE  THAN  ALCOHOL. 

But  some  pro-opiumists  who  laugh  at  Sir  George  Birdwood, 
nevertheless  maintain  that  opium  smoking  is  no  worse  than 
gin  and  whisky  drinking.  If  this  be  so,  how  is  it  that 
Burmah,  Arracan  and  China,  which  permit  the  use  of  ardent 
spirits,  forbade,  under  the  heaviest  penalties,  opium  smoking, 
and  would  have  been  free  from  the  vice  to-day  but  for  Eng- 
land’s coercive  opium  policy?  Or  how  is  it  than  Japan  rigor- 
ously excludes  opium  now  from  articles  of  import  and  of 
home  production?* 

These  Orientals  know,  what  all  competent  authorities  as- 
sert, that  the  opium  vice  is  sinister  beyond  all  drinking  or 
other  tyrant  habits,  in  its  fascination  at  the  beginning,  and  in 
its  intense  necessity  when  it  is  once  adopted. 

“ It  differs  from  drinking  habits,”  says  Dr.  Graves,  of  Can- 
ton, “in  the  insidiousness  of  its  approach,  and  the  difliculty 
of  escaping  its  clutches.” 

TESTIMONY  OF  MESSES.  COOPEE,  CAENE  AND  MATHESON. 

The  Parliamentary  Committee  on  East  India  Finance,  in 
1871,  asked  Mr.  T.  T.  Cooper,  the  traveller:  “Do  you  think, 


♦After  the  above  was  written,  intelligence  reached  this  country  that  Corea  re- 
quired the  prohibiting  of  opium  in  the  newly-made  treaty  with  the  United  States. 


29 


from  your  own  experience  in  travelling  over  China,  and  in- 
vestigating these  matters,  that  the  use  of  opium  there  causes 
as  much  public  injury  as  the  consumption  of  drink  in  Eng- 
land, as  far  as  you  can  see?”  His  reply  was:  “Yes  ; I think 
that  the  effects  of  opium-smoking  in  China  are  worse  than  the 
effects  of  drink  in  England.” 

M.  Came,  who  has  travelled  in  some  of  the  Southern  and 
Western  provinces  of  China,  writes  in  the  Revue  des 
Deux-Mondes : “Ido  not  believe  that  there  ever  has  been 
a more  terrible  scourge  in  the  world  than  Opium.  The  Al- 
cohol employed  by  Europeans  to  destroy  savages,  the  plague 
that  ravages  a country,  cannot  be  compared  to  Opium.” 

Donald  Matheson,  Esq.,  one  of  the  original  partners  in  the 
extensive  mercantile  fii'm  in  China,  of  Jardine,  Matheson  & 
Co.,  who  left  it  because  the  other  members  would  engage  in 
the  opium  traffic,  says  : “Opium  is  twice  as  seducing  as  alco- 
hol. Of  those  who  take  it,  scarce  one  in  one  hundred  es- 
capes. The  only  comparison  which  can  be  made  is  between 
opium  smoking  and  drunkenness.  ” 

THE  OPIUM  VICTIM  BOUND  HAND  AND  FOOT. 

The  pro-opiumists  seem  to  ^forget  that  every  time  the 
opium  smoker  indulges,  from  his  first  smoke  to  his  last,  it  is 
for  the  express  purpose  of  producing  an  immediate  stupor,  or 
partial  insensibility  akin  to  drunkenness.  At  first  it  is  a sort 
of  beatific  trance,  and  hence  its  fascination;  but  after  the 
vice  has  got  a firm  hold  of  its  victim,  “it  lays  aside  its 
angel  aspect,  and  enslaves,  tortures,  and  destroys  like  a 
fiend.” 

But  though  the  wretched  man  now  knows  that  every  time 
he  indulges,  his  dreams  will  be  horrid,  and  his  imaginings 
wild  and  fearful,  he  yet  cannot  refrain  from  lessening  the 
period  between  each  indulgence  without  much  physical  tor- 
ment, while  the  craved  for  dose  must  be  increased  to  produce 
the  daily  effect. 

Dr.  Kane  says  the  pleasurable  sensations  “ may  last  a year, 
in  rare  cases  two  years,  but  more  often  only  a few  months. 
Then  the  good  spirit  of  the  pipe  disappears,  giving  place  to  a 
demon,  who  binds  his  victim  hand  and  foot.” 


30 


Advauced  opium  smokers  suffer  from  “ an  agonizing  affec- 
tion of  the  digestive  organs,  and  mucous  membranes;”  they 
often  become  emaciated  and  cadaverous,  and  are  spoken  of 
by  their  countrymen  as  “ opium  ghosts  ” or  “ opium  fiends.” 
Dr.  Kane  says  that  tne  word  “fiend”  is  also  applied  by 
American  opium  smokers  to  their  fellows  who  are  in  the 
later  stages  of  the  vice. 

OPIUM  SMOKEKS  NOT  ADMITTED  TO  CHURCH  MEMBERSHIP. 

Another  evidence  that  opium  smoking  is  far  worse  than 
imbibing  alcoholic  drinks,  is  that  no  Protestant  Missionaries 
admit  smokers  of  opium  to  church  membership,  while,  of 
course,  they  all  do  those  who  moderately  indulge  in  spirituous 
liquors.  We  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  same  is  true  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  Catholic  missionaries.  To  'do  otherwise 
would  violate  the  convictions  not  only  of  the  native  Christ- 
ians, but  even  of  the  heathen. 

In  the  Government  proclamations,  and  in  the  religious 
tracts  of  the  various  Chinese  sects,  ojiium  smoking  is  classed 
with  gambling  and  licentiousness.  The  following  is  testi- 
mony of  sixteen  missionaries  at  Canton,  of  different  nations, 
and  different  protestant  denominations: 

“ The  empire  and  people  of  China  are  daily  becoming  more 
and  more  demoralized  and  impoverished  by  the  increasing 
use  of  the  drug.  The  moderate  use  of  opium,  granting  that 
such  a use  is  possible,  is  uniformly  regarded  by  Chinese 
Christians  as  a sufficient  reason  for  refusing  admission  to  the 
Church;  and  though  none  of  us  enforces  such  a rule  in  re- 
gard to  the  use  of  spirits,  we  do  all  believe  that  the  danger 
of  excess  is  so  much  greater  in  the  case  of  opium  that  this  rule 
in  regard  to  it  is  necessary. 

“The  moral  sense  of  the  people  of  China,  whether  addicted 
to  the  vice  of  the  smoking  opium  or  not,  is  opposed  to  the 
traffic,  and  condemns  all  concerned  in  the  importation  of  the 
drug.” 

The  Rev.  David  Hill,  an  experienced  missionary  in  Cen- 
tral China,  says: 

“ The  Chinese  speak  of  it  as  a most  vicious  and  pernicious 
habit.  During  my  residence  in  the  Province  of  Shansi, 
prizes  were  offered  to  the  literati  of  the  place  for  the  best 
essays  on  certain  moral  and  religious  subjects.  One  of  these 


31 


was  “ The  Opium  Trade,  and  the  best  means  of  suppressing 
it;”  and  out  of  the  hundred  essays  which  were  sent  in  on  that 
occasion,  there  was  not  one  but  condemned  the  trade,  and 
many  in  most  emphatic  language.  These  may  be  taken  as  an 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  literati  of  China. 
Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  trade,  the  Chinese  have  made 
up  their  minds  as  to  its  character.  Baneful  as  we  may  ac- 
count the  liquo#  traffic,  they  account  the  trade  in  opium  im- 
mensely worse.” 

THE  LATEST  LINE  OF  DEFENCE. 

The  pro-opiumists  have  been’  driven  from  one  line  of  de- 
fence to  another,  and  some  of  them  have  at  length  taken 
refuge  in  the  bold,  but  utterly  unwarranted  assertion  that 
opium  was  extensively  produced,  and  the  smoking  of  it  largely 
practised,  especially  in  the  Southwestern  provinces,  long  be- 
fox'e  it  was  introduced  on  the  Eastern  sea-board  by  Europeans. 

An  anonymous  correspondent  of  the  London  Times,  writ- 
ing from  Shanghai,  says  that  this  was  the  case  “ hundreds  of 
years  before  it  was  carried  from  India  to  China*  by  the  Eng- 
lish.” 

If  this  assertion  was  correct  we  should  certainly  have 
learned  of  the  facts  long  ere  this.  Six  hundred  years  ago  Mar- 
co Polo  was  a long  time  in  China,  and  he  wrote  minutely  and 
elaborately  of  the  productions  of  the  country  and  the  habits 
of  the  people,  but  he  says  not  a word  about  opium.  In  the 
sixteenth,  seventeenth  snd  eighteenth  centuries  there  were 
numerous  Roman  Catholic  Missionaries  in  China,  and  every 
province  had  some  of  them,  for  they  were  favored  by  the 
authorities  because  of  their  willingness  to  impart  a know- 
ledge of  the  arts  and  sciences  of  Europe;  and  even  when  they 
fell  into  disfavor,  though  many  left  the  country,  others  con- 
tinued in  it  disguised  as  natives.  In  the  writings  of  these 
men  no  reference  has  been  found  to  opium  smoking,  though 
almost  everything  pertaining  to  the  Chinese  is  alluded  to. 

CONSUL  WATTEES  AND  A CHINESE  AUTHOEITT. 

This  correspondent’s  principal  authority  is  Consul  Watters, 
but  it  is  stated  that  this  gentleman  declines  to  be  reponsible 
for  the  statements  attributed  to  him. 

But  we  are  referred  to  a native  work,  published  more  than 


32 


two  hundred  years  ago,  for  proof  that  opium  has  been  long 
known  to  the  Chinese.  This  publication,  however,  gives  no 
warrant  for  the  inference  that  the  drug  was  smoked.  The 
title  of  th6  work  is  Pen  Ts'au,  generally  rendered  “ Chinese 
Herbal.”  It  is,  however,  a great  Thesaurus  of  the  Chinese 
Materia  Medica,  and  in  it  opium  is  spoken  of  as  a new  medi- 
cine, and  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to'any  other  use  of 
it  than  that  of  a medicine. 

As  we  have  before  stated  European  Roman  Catholic  priests 
have  been  in  these  Southwestern  provinces  for  three  hundred 
years,  and  those  who  are  now  there  assert  that  it  is  only 
about  thirty  years  ago  that  opium  was  begun  to  be  grown 
for  smoking,  at  first  in  a very  small  way,  but  latterly  more 
largely.  Such  too,  is  the  testimony  of  the  Protestant  Mis- 
sionaries who  have  visited  these  provinces,  and  the  few  who 
are  now  residing  there.  Such,  also,  is  the  view  of  the  dis- 
tinguished traveller,  Mr.  T.  T.  Cooper,  who  explored  these 
very  provinces.  Father  Deschamps,  the  leading  ecclesiastic 
of  the  region,  and  who  had  resided  for  more  than  thirty  years 
in  Sze-chuen,  told  Mr.  Cooper  that  he  had  seen  the  growth  of 
the  poppy  introduced  into  that  great  province. 

A missionary  of  the  China  Inland  Mission,  travelling  re- 
cently in  Yunnan  was  informed  by  the  old  men  with  whom 
he  conversed,  that  opium  had  been  introduced  only  thirty 
years  ago,  that  they  considered  it  a terrible  curse,  and  that 
they  believed  it  had  come  from  foreign  countries. 

Now  this  was  sixty  years  after  the  unscrupulous  Warren 
Hastings  sent  two  heavily  armed  British  ships  to  Chinese 
waters  to  begin  the  Anglo-Indian  opium  smuggling,  and  ten 
years  after  the  British  Opium  War. 

TESTIMONY  OF  AN  IMPOETANT  JOURNAL. 

The  London  and  China  Telegraph,  than  which  there  is  no 
higher  authority  on  matters  relating  to  China,  and  foreign 
commercial  and  political  intercourse  with  that  country,  says: 

“ Several  writers  lately  have  fallen  into  error,  notably,  the 
Times'  Shanghai  correspondent,  and  Lord  Hartington,  who 
quoted  him  in  the  late  opium  debate,  on  the  subject  of  opium 
being  known,  produced,  and  used  before  Europeans  went  to 
China.  The  British  Consul  Watters,  who  is  quoted,  could 


33 


never  have  made  a statement  in  the  sense  imputed  to  him  hy 
these  writers.  Other  British  Consuls,  who  know  the  subject 
thoroughly,  refute  such  a statement.  It  is  one  thing  to  state 
that  opium  was  known  and  used  (as  a medicinal  remedy)  long 
before  we  came  to  China,  but  it  is  quite  a different  thing  to 
assert  that  the  Chinese  produced  and  smoked  opium  hundreds 
of  years  ago.  The  whole  thing  lies  therefore  in  this  misun- 
derstanding and  confusion,  and  this  is  the  key  to  much  of  the 
difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  to  the  diversity  of  views. 
Thirty  years  ago  opium  was  not  grown  in  either  Yunnan  or 
Szechuen,  and  was  procured  from  Canton  until  they  had 
obtained  seeds  and  the  knowledge  of  the  cultivation  from 
India,  and  all  this  within  the  last  thirty  years.” 

COMPLICITY  OP  AMERICANS  IN  THE  OPIUM  TRADE. 

The  Rev.  F.  Storrs  Turner,  the  editor  of  The  Friend  of 
China,  the  organ  of  the  excellent  “ Anglo-Chinese  Society  for 
the  Suppression  of  the  Opium  Trade,”  says  in  the  May  num- 
ber of  that  magazine,  in  an  article  on  Dr.  Kane’s  book : — 

“ All  at  once,  thousands  of  Americans  are  fascinated  by 
this  new  temptation,  finding  in  it  fully  as  much  pleasure  and 
solace  as  the  more  phlegmatic  sons  of  Ham.  Had  England 
been  the  scene  of  this  acclimatization  of  a vice  which  has 
hitherto  been  regarded  as  peculiarly  oriental  in  its  habitat,  a 
visible  Nemesis  would  have  been  discerned;  but  it  seems 
strange  that  while  England  fought  the  opium-war  and  fosters 
the  opium-trade,  it  is  Americans  who  are  succumbing  to  the 
fumes  of  the  opium-pipe.  Not  that  America  can  claim  to  be 
altogether  free  from  complicity  in  the  sad  transactions  which 
have  culminated  for  her  in  this  disastrous  result.  Always 
American  and  English  merchants  have  traded  side  by  side  in 
China,  and  most  of  the  Americans  were  as  ready  to  deal  in 
opium  as  their  British  neighbours;  and  although  America 
spent  no  powder  and  shot  in  the  various  wars,  her  diplomat- 
ists have  been  on  the  spot,  demanding  for  their  country  an 
equal  share  in  the  spoils  of  victory.  In  the  legalization  of  the 
opium-trade,  it  was  the  United  States  minister  who  egged  on 
Lord  Elgin  to  push  the  business  through.  Moreover,  as  to 
the  law  of  moral  retribution,  we  have  not  come  to  the  end  of 
things  yet.  America  has  been  the  first  to  catch  the  infec- 
tion, but  we  know  not  which  land  will  be  most  fearfully 
scourged  by  the  pestilence  before  it  has  run  its  course.” 

OPIUM  SMOKING  IN  ENGLAND. 

We  have  several  times  seen  it  stated  that  there  are  “ dens” 
in  the  city  of  London,  and  that  the  vice  of  opium  smoking 


34 


has  taken  root  in  England.  Did  Mr,  Turner  fail  to  see  the 
following  in  Dr.  Kane’s  book  ? 

“The  spread  of  this  habit  in  this  country  has  certainly  been 
very  rapid.  I was  lately  talking  with  the  party  whom  I have 
already^  instanced  as  being  the  second  white  man  to  smoke 
opium  in  the  United  States.  Soon  after  his  initiation  he  went 
to  England,  where  he  remained  for  a few  months.  On  his 
return,  he  says,  he  was  astonished  to  see  the  number  who 
were  smoking.” 

Of  course  we  do  not  consider  an  opium-smoker’s  testimony 
as  conclusive,  but  it  might  be  well  for  philanthropic  English- 
men to  look  into  the  matter,  and  have  the  opium  dens,  if  any 
are  found,  closed,  and  other  repressive  measures  adopted. 

We  think  it  quite  probable  that  had  there  been  from  ten  to 
twenty  thousand  Chinese  opium-smokers  in  England  as  long 
as  they  have  been  in  America,  there  would  now  be  as  many 
Englishmen  addicted  to  the  vice  as  there  are  Americans. 
There  is  more  consumption  of  intoxicants  there  than  here, 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  opium-smoking  should  not  equally 
prevail  there  under  equal  temptations. 

The  mistake  which  has  been  made  in  the  United  States  has 
been  the  permitting  of  this  more  deadly  vice  than  alcohol 
drinking  to  go  on  unchecked  as  long  as  it  was  confined  to  the 
Chinese  and  a few  thousands  of  Americans.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  a similar  mistake  will  not  be  made  in  England. 

BISHOP  WORDSWORTH. 

The  venerable  Dr.  Wordsworth,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  in  a 
speech  delivered  at  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  in  May  of 
this  year,  said: — 

“ We  as  a nation  were  not  only  deriving  a revenue  from 
this  poisonous  drug,  but  had  assisted  in  propagating  it,  had 
held  it  to  the  lips  of  the  Chinese,  and  administered  it  to  them 
under  coercion.  That  seemed  to  be  the  head  and  front  of 
our  offending;  and  being  so,  we  owed  them  some  reparation 
for  the  opium  war  in  which  we  had  been  engaged  with  them, 
and  in  which  we  had  gained  a most  disastrous  victory.’’ 

“ Most  of  them  knew  that  an  immense  amount  of  it  was 
even  consumed  in  our  own  country.  He  believed  there  was 
scarcely  a market  town  in  Cambridgeshire  or  Norfolk — and 
he  could  certainly  say  in  Lincolnshire — where  it  was  not  sold 
to  the  country-people  to  be  consumed  by  them.  It  was  high 


time  they  raised  their  voice  against  it,  tending,  as  it  did,  to 
the  misery,  degradation,  and  demoralization  of  both  body  and 
soul.” 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  if  there  are  not  as  many 
opium-smokers,  there  are  as  many  opium  eaters  in  England 
as  in  the  United  States,  and  perhaps  there  are  more. 

DE.  BUEDON,  BISHOP  OF  VICTOEIA,  (hOHG  KONG.) 

The  present  Bishop  of  Victoria,  has  been  in  China  thirty 
years,  first  as  Missionary  at  Shanghai,  then  at  Peking,  and  for 
the  last  five  or  six  years  as  Bishop  of  Victoria,  with  jurisdic- 
tion in  Southern  China.  He  has  traversed  the  length  of  the 
Empire  and  a good  part  of  its  breadth.  He  was  associated 
with  Bishop  Schereschewsky,  in  the  translation  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  into  the  Mandarin  language, 
and  he  is  a very  high  authority  on  matters  relating  to  China. 
At  the  Church  Missionary  Society’s  annual  meeting  in 
London  in  May  of  this  year,  he  is  reported  by  the  Chitrch 
Standard  as  having  said: 

“ I venture  to  say  without  the  possibility  of  contradiction 
by  any  one,  that  the  national  conscience  of  China  is  against 
the  opium  traffic.  (Hear,  hear).  China  may  take  it  because 
we  have  filled  the  eastern  part  of  the  country  with  it.  But 
whether  they  take  it  or  not,  they  are  ashamed  of  it.  They 
know  it  is  wrong;  their  well-wishers  are  against  it:  and  if 
complaints  are  not  so  loud  against  it  as  they  used  to  be,  it  is 
because  England  is  regarded  as  a hopelessly  hard  country.  The 
story  of  the  opium  traffic  is  a long  and  bitter  story;  and  I am 
rejoiced  to  think  that  there  has  been  an  agitation  against  it. 
(Cheers.)  I would  say  go  on  agitating  until  you  stop  all  con- 
nexion of  our  Government  with  it — (cheers): — but  until  India 
has  taken  the  land  from  the  growth  of  opium  for  the  growth 
of  cereals  for  her  own  famine-stricken  people  there  is  no  hope 
of  stopping  the  traffic.  They  say  if  we  do  not  grow  it  others 
will.  Is  that  an  argument?  Do  two  blacks  make  a white? 
Because  another  person  is  sure  to  commit  a murder,  must  I 
anticipate  him?  Surely  not.  Let  us  go  on  agitating  to  re- 
move this  blot  from  England,  and  then  let  China  do  what  she 
will.  It  is  late,  indeed,  to  reform,  but  let  us  do  our  best.” 

It  is  unquestionably  the  duty  of  all  Christian  people  to 
continue  the  agitation, 

1.  Until  China  is  permitted  to  save  herself,  as  much  as  she 
now  can,  from  the  deadliest  foe  she  has  ever  known. 


36 


2,  Until  the  vast  area  in  India  now  perverted  to  the  growth 
of  opium,  is  reverted  to  food  crops,  and  thus  the  famines  be 
lessened  there,  and  the  immense  source  of  supply  of  what 
threatens  to  become  the  curse  of  the  world  is  cut  off. 

3.  Until  there  is  an  enlightened  public  sentiment  in  the 
countries  in  which  the  seductive,  and  fearfully  enslaving 
and  ruinous  opium  habit  has  taken  root,  and  the  necessary  mea- 
sures of  repression  and  prohibition  are  enacted  and  enforced. 


* APPENDIX. 


THE  OPIUM  WARS. 

Note  A. — Of  course  we  do  not  maintain  that  opium  was 
the  only  cause  of  the  armed  conflicts  between  England  and 
China.  Chinese  conceit  and  exclusiveness,  and  the  mistakes 
of  native  officials  who  were  ignorant  of  international  law  and 
European  precedents,  had  something  to  do  with  them,  but 
that  opium  was  the  principal  cause  is  indisputable,  as  are 
also  the  statements,  given  below,  of  Mr.  B.  Fossett  Lock  in 
the  Contemporary  Review  article  already  referred  to. 

Sir  Henry  Pottinger,  the  English  Plenipotentiary  to  China 
at  the  time  of  the  first  opium  war,  after  the  signing  of  the 
Treaty  of  Nanking,  proposed  and  was  permitted  by  the 
Chinese  Commissioners  to  say  a few  words  upon,  to  quote  his 
own  language,  “ the  great  cause  that  produced  the  disturbances 
which  led  to  the  war,  viz,  the  trade  in  opium'' 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  Dr.  S.  Wells  Williams,  (“  Middle 
Kingdom,”  Vol.  2,  p.  569)  who  was  in  China  at  the  time  and 
had  been  for  some  years,  and  was  familiar  with  the  whole 
case.  This  distinguished  authority  says,  page  524,  “It  was 
an  opium  war,  and  eminently  an  unjust  one,  more  especially 
as  carried  on  by  a Christian  power  like  Great  Britain  against 
a Pagan  monarch  who  had  vainly  endeavored  to  put  down  a 
vice  so  hurtful  to  his  people.” 

The  Emperor,  Taoukwang,  before  sending  Commissioner 
Lin  to  Canton  to  enforce  the  prohibition  of  opium,  consulted 
the  most  influential  men  in  all  parts  of  the  empire,  as  he  was 
persuaded  that  war  with  England  would  be  the  result.  The 
replies  were  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  enforcement, 
war  or  no  war.  This  was  in  accord  with  his  own  view;  and 
it  is  said  that  when  he  took  farewell  of  his  Minister  Lin  with 
the  words  “ See,  inquire,  and  act,”  tie  wept,  because  of  the 
calamities  which  would  come  upon  his  people  whether  the 
foreign  poison  was  permitted  to  come  in,  or  there  was  a more 
determined  effort  to  keep  it  out. 

Chinese  assumptions  of  superiority  and  dislike  to  foreign 


38 


intercourse  were  enhanced  by  the  evil  doings  of  the  opiunff 
smugglers,  and  other  unprincipled  foreigpers,  and  by  Eng- 
land’s violent  support  of  the  opium  smuggling.  Dr.  William- 
son and  other  extensive  travelers  in  the  Chinese  empire  as- 
sert, that  the  whole  of  the  country  would  have  been  opened  to 
foreign  intercourse  and  residence  long  before  some  of  the  now 
open  ports  were,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fear  that  wherever 
foreigners  should  reside,  the  opium  curse  would  be  fostered 
and  fastened  upon  the  people.  What  good  reason  there  was 
for  these  fears  we  have  abundantly  shown. 

MR.  lock’s  statements. 

“ There  has  been,  in  fact,  no  difference  of  opinion  upon  this 
that  the  Treaty  of  Nanking,  our  first  commercial  treaty  with 
China,  was  extorted  by  force  of  arms  after  a war  which  was 
commenced  to  avenge  the  detention  by  the  Chinese  authori- 
ties of  certain  Englishmen  until  they  would  consent  to  sur- 
render a quantity  of  smuggled  opium,  which  had  no  right  to 
be  where  it  was,  within  the  port  of  Canton.  So  much  Mr. 
Cobden  admitted  with  shame;  so  much  Lord  Palmerston  par- 
aded with  pride. 

It  may  be  granted  that  nothing  is  said  about  opium  in  the 
treaty  of  Nanking  itself,  nor  in  the  tariff  regulations  which 
followed.  For  fifteen  years  after  the  date  of  the  Treaty 
(1842)  the  trade  in  opium,  increasing  at  the  rate  of  10,000 
chests  in  every  ten  years,  was  to  be  carried  on  as  an  illicit  and 
smuggling  trade.  It  is  none  the  less  the  fact  that  the  smug- 
gling was  connived  at  and  supported  by  the  British  authori- 
ties, that  they  made  periodical  reports  on  the  state  of  the 
trade,  that  licenses  were  granted  to  pirates  and  smugglers  to 
sail  under  the  British  flag,  and  that  they  were  supported  in 
their  conflicts  with  the  lawful  authorities  of  China  by  the 
naval  forces  of  the  Queen,  fl)  Neither  can  it  be  denied  that 
• this  practice  led,  as  might  have  been  expected,  to  the  China 
war  of  1857.  The  story  of  the  pirate  ship.  The  Arrow — how 
she  was  sailing  under  the  British  flag  when  she  had  no  right 
to  do  so;  (2)  how  she  dishonored  that  flag  by  smuggling; 
how  she  was  detected  by  the  Chinese  ; how  she  was  lawfully 
and  rightfully  seized  and  a portion  of  her  crew  detained  for 
piracy;  how  Sir  John  Bowring  demanded  an  apology,  which 
was  refused;  how  we  thereupon  went  to  war  with  China  to 


(1)  See  Papers  relating  to  Naval  Forces  at  Canton,  p.  lo,  Parliamentary  Papers, 
1867,  vol.  xli. 

(2)  See  dlspatcU  from  the  Governor  of  Hong  Kong,  printed  July,  1862. 


39 


avenge  this  imagined  insult;  how  we  succeeded,  and  insisted 
upon  the  execution  of  the  Treaty  of  Tien-tsin,  in  which  we 
formally  declared  that  the  Christian  religion  taught  us  to  do 
as  we  would  be  done  by,  and  in  which  we  insisted  upon  a re- 
vision of  the  commercial  tariff;  how,  under  that  provision,  a 
new  tariff  was  drawn  up,  in  which  the  importation  of  opium 
was  to  be  allowed,  subject  only  to  a low  duty  (about  one- 
fortieth  part  of  the  rate  imposed  by  ourselves  in  India) — all 
this  is  too  well  known  to  need  repetition  in  detail. — 3Ir.  B. 
Fossett  loch,  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  April. 

Mr,  Lock  alludes  to  the  fact  that  England  did  not  succeed 
in  getting  the  importation  of  opium  legalized  in  the  treaty  of 
Nanking.  The  reason  that  nothing  was  said  in  the  Nanking 
treaty  about  opium  was,  that  notwithstanding  the  heavy  loss 
of  life  and  treasure  by  the  first  opium  war,  and  the  exaction 
of  twenty-one  millions  of  dollars  indemnity  by  the  English, 
the  Chinese  Commissioners  positively  refused  to  have  it  go 
into  the  treaty,  or  to  legalize  its  importation  in  any  way. 
Commissioner  Keying  said  nobly,  “We  will  not  put  a value 
on  riches,  and  slight  men’s  lives.”  The  emperor,  Taou- 
Kwang,  said:  “It  is  true  I cannot  prevent  the  introduction  of 
the  flowing  poison;  but  nothing  will  induce  me  to  derive  a 
revenue  from  the  vice  and  misery  of  my  people.” 

It  required  another  war,  and  another  emperor  on  the  throne, 
and  that  emperor’s  palace  to  be  sacked  and  destroyed,  before 
the  first  penny  was  received  as  duty  on  the  pestilent  and  ab- 
horred thing.  As  a specimen  of  how  both  wars  were  carried 
on,  we  quote  the  following,  from  an  English  writer,  on  the 
bombardment  of  Canton: 

“ Field  pieces,  loaded  with  grape,  were  planted  at  the  end 
of  long  narrow  streets  crowded  with  innocent  men,  women 
and  children,  to  mow  them  down  like  grass,  till  the  gutters 
flowed  with  their  blood.  In  one  scene  of  carnage,  the  Times 
correspondent  recorded  that  half  an  army  of  10,000  men  were 
in  ten  minutes  destroyed  by  the  sword,  or  forced  into  the 
broad  river.  The  Morning  Herald  asserted  that  ‘ a more 
horrible  or  revolting  crime  than  this  bombardment  of  Canton 
has  never  been  committed  in  the  worst  ages  of  barbarian 
darkness.’  ”* 


* "England  and  the  Opium  Trade  with  China.''  S.  W,  Partridge  & Co.,  London. 


1 


40 

THE  EARL  OP  ELGIN  AND  KINCARDINE.  ’ 

Note  B. — Lord  Elgin  was  the  ablest  and  most  distinguished 
of  all  the  British  Envoys  to  China.  He  was  induced  to  ac- 
cept the  position  at  the  time  of  the  second  opium  war,  because 
he  thought  it  would  be  better  to  effect  the  legalization  of  the 
traffic  than  that  such  extensive  smuggling  should  continue 
and  be  supported  by  the  British  Government.  He  hoped 
also  to  diminish  the  trade  by  putting  it  under  legal  restraint. 

But  when  he  found  that  not  only  the  English  traders  and 
Consuls  in  China,  but  also  the  British  Rulers  of  India,  and 
the  Horae  Government  were  bent  upon  the  extension  of  the 
traffic,  and  that  the  war  which  he  had  encouraged,  and 
another  into  which  it  glided,  had  really  been  made  to  greatly 
aid  in  this  extension,  his  indignation  and  vexation  were  very 
great, 

“ Are  all  my  exertions,”  said  he,  “ to  result  only  in  the 
extension  of  the  area  over  which  Englishmen  are  to  exhibit 
how  hollow  and  superficial  are  both  their  civilization  and 
their  Christianity  ?”* 

But  the  Earl  was  in  a false  position,  and  all  his  ability  and 
good  intentions  could  not  prevent  the  evil  consequences  of 
his  being  in  that  position.  Instead  of  forcing  legalization  he 
ought  to  have  favored  the  conceding  to  China  her  indisputa- 
ble right  to  prohibit,  in  self-defence,  the  seductive  and  bane- 
ful drug,  and  to  put  down,  with  England’s  consent  and  aid, 
the  infamous  opium  smuggling. 

The  Christian  lady  referred  to  in  the  following  from  Mr. 
Moule’s  Opium  Question  was  wiser  than  the  Earl: 

“ Lord  Elgin,  when  passing  up  the  coast  of  China  on  his 
way  to  Tien-tsin,  was  conversing  with  a well-known  Chris- 
tian lady  on  the  subject  of  the  opium  trade.  He  expressed 
his  opinion  that  of  two  evils  legalization  of  the  trade  was 
likely  to  be  productive  of  less  injury  than  the  continuation  of 
the  contraband  sale.  ‘My  Lord,’  was  the  reply,  ‘ surely  for 
a Christian  country  there  must  be  some  other  alternative  than 
the  choice  between  two  moral  evils.’” 

SIR  ROBERT  HART. 

Note  C. — ^Sir  Robert  Hart,  an  Irish  gentleman  who  is  act- 


* fitUre  and  Journals,  page  S2o. 


41 


ing  as  Inspector-General  of  Customs  in  China,  has  written  an 
article  in  which  he  computes  that  there  are  only  two  millions 
of  opium  smokers  in  thatjsountry.  That  this  is  far  too  small 
an  estimate  is  the  declaration  of  the  North  China  Herald, 
and  of  all  the  English  papers  in  China,  and  also  of  merchants, 
travelers  and  missionaries. 

In  his  reckoning,  this  gentleman  gave  a larger  amount  con- 
sumed daily  by  the  smoker  than  even  the  average  wealthy 
smoker  uses,  or  than  the  whole  daily  wage  of  a laboring  man 
or  artisan  would  pay  for,  while  vast  numbers  of  these  latter,  as 
well  as  the  higher  classes,  are  addicted  to  the  vice.  Dr.  Kane 
says  that  the  average  amount  consumed  daily  by  the  Chinese 
“is  about  sixty  grains.”  This  is  only  about  one  third  of 
what  Sir  Robert  Hart  states.* 

Then,  too,  at  the  smoking  places,  that  which  the  well-to-do 
have  only  taken  a few  whiffs  from,»ds  sold  again,  at  a less 
price,  to  poorer  smokers,  and,  for  a third  time,  to  still  poorer 
wretches,  many  of  whom  have  been  reduced  from  afl3.uence  or 
competence  to  poverty  by  this  vicious  indulgence. 

Sir  Robert  Hart,  too,  considered  not  the  immense  amount 
of  opium  which  is  smuggled  into  various  parts  of  the  empire. 
Sir  J.  Pope  Hennessey,  the  Governor  of  Hong  Kong,  in  his 
report  to  Lord  Kimberly,  dated  April  29th,  1881,  but  only 
very  recently  published,  says  the  Government  of  China  loses 
more  than  a million  of  dollars  of  revenue  per  annum  through 
the  opium  smuggling  from  Hong  Kong  to  China.  As  the 
English  Government  allows  China  to  levy  but  a very  small 
duty  on  the  unsmuggled  opium,  that  loss  of  a million  of 
dollars  shows  how  vast  is  the  amount  of  the  smuggled  drug. 

The  Governor  further  says  that  battles  take  place  between 
the  Chinese  Government  cruisers  and  the  smuggling  vessels 
within  view  of  Hong  Kong,  and  that  such  a state  of  things  is 
inimical  to  peace  between  China  and  England;  and  yet 
neither  the  English  Government  at  home,  nor  the  Colonial 
Government  at  Hong  Kong,  do  anything  to  stop  this  colony 
being  made  the  principal  base  of  the  opium  smugglers’  opera- 
tions. Similar  statements  have  also  been  made  by  Sir 
Thomas  Wade,  British  Minister  at  Peking,  who  favors  action 
against  the  smugglers. 


42 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  MAEQUIS  OF  SALISBUET. 

Note  D. — The  chiefs  of  the  late  Conservative  Government 
of  England  would  not  agree  to  the  ratification  of  the  Chefoo 
Convention,  because  it  would  make  it  easier  for  the  Chinese 
to  prevent  opium  smuggling.  The  Rev.  J.  Llewelyn  Davies, 
in  an  article  in  the  Contemporary  Review,  entitled  “ Inter- 
national Christianity,”  says: 

“The  Government  were  moved  by  Sir  Thomas  Wade,  but 
they  were  also  moved,  and  more  powerfully,  by  the  opium 
interest.  Lord  Salisbury,  with  that  candor  which  sometimes 
characterized  the  late  Government,  explained  the  whole 
matter.  The  arrangement  would  have  put  it  into  the  power 
of  the  Chinese  to  prevent  smuggling.  With  smuggling  pre- 
vented, they  would  have  been  able  to  raise  their  own  internal 
duty  on  opium.  ‘ That  would  be  a result,’  in  Lord  Salisbury’s 
words,  ‘which  practically  would  neutralize  the  policy  which 
has  hitherto  been  pursued  by  this  country  with  regard  to  that 
drug.’  ” 

No  wonder  that  the  Earl  of  Elgin  said:  “I  am  sure  that  in 
our  relations  with  the  Chinese  we  have  acted  scandalously.” 
(“  Letters  and  Journals,”  page  280.) 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  AN  INDEPENDENT  STATE  DENIED  TO  CHINA. 

N OTE  E. — After  more  than  forty  years  of  eflTort,  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  enforced  opium  traffic  have  been  unable  to  carry 
through  Parliament  even  so  mild  a resolution  as  the  follow- 
ing, which  is  to  be  moved  and  advocated  every  year  until  its 
adoption: 

“ That  an  humble  Address  be  presented  to  her  Majesty, 
praying  that  in  the  event  of  negotiations  taking  place  between 
the  Governments  of  her  Majesty  and  China,  having  reference 
to  the  duties  levied  on  opium  under  the  treaty  of  Tien-tsin, 
the  Government  of  her  Majesty  will  be  pleased  to  intimate  to 
the  Government  of  China  that  in  any  such  revision  of  that 
Treaty  the  Government  of  China  will  be  met  as  that  of  an 
independent  state,  having  the  full  right  to  arrange  its  own 
import  duties  as  may  be  deemed  expedient.” 

The  Archbishop  of  York,  writing  in  April,  1882,  says: 

“ I sincerely  hope  that  the  clergy  of  the  Northern  Province, 
and  especially  those  of  my  own  Diocese,  may  be  induced  to 
petition  Parliament  on  the  subject  of  the  opium  trade.  The 
question  is,  whether  a nation,  convinced  that  the  traffic  in 


43 


opium  is  injurious  to  the  people,  is  to  be  free  to  make  its  own 
regulations  as  to  the  importation  of  the  drug,  or  is  to  be  co- 
erced by  a stronger  nation,  that  has  a good  deal  of  opium  to 
sell.  China  only  asks  for  that  power  of  self-government,  in 
the  matter  of  the  opium  traffic,  which  we  exercise  for  our- 
selves in  all  matters.  It  is  difficult  to  see  any  grounds  for 
refusing  such  a right.  That  a Christian  nation  should  be 
forcing  the  sale  of  a noxious  drug  upon  a heathen  nation  that 
complains  of  and  would  reject  it,  is  a very  sorry  spectacle.” 

It  is,  indeed,  a very  sad  spectacle,  and  a very  flagrant  vio- 
lation of  the  principle  of  the  law  of  nations.  Says  Vattel,  the 
great  authority  on  international  law,  “ all  nations  are  under  a 
strict  obligation  to  cultivate  justice  towards  each  other,  to 
observe  it  scrupulously  and  carefully,  to  abstain  from  any- 
thing that  may  violate  it.” 

What  an  utter  ignoring  of  this  there  has  been  from  the 
days  of  Warren  Hastings  to  the  present  time,  and  what  “a 
century  of  dishonor”  it  has  been  to  England.  It  far  sur- 
passes in  the  magnitude  and  vast  reach  of  its  evil  results,  the 
same  century  of  dishonor  to  our  own  Government  for  its  un- 
just treatment  of  the  Red  Men  of  the  West. 

SINCERITY  OF  THE  CHINESE  GOVERNMENT. 

Note  F. — There  are  no  persons  who  enjoy  greater  advan- 
tages for  understanding  the  attitude  of  the  National  Govern- 
ment of  China  on  the  opium  question,  than  the  missionaries 
who  are  resident  in  the  capital. 

The  Rev.  Luther  H.  Gulick,  D.D.,  the  agent  in  China  of 
the  American  Bible  Society,  writing  from  Peking,  May  15, 
1882,  to  the  New  York  Observer^  says : 

“ During  the  past  week  there  have  been  some  very  interest- 
ing discussions,  in  the  monthly  conference  of  missionaries  of 
this  place,  on  the  attitude  of  the  Chinese  Government  toward 
the  opium  question.  The  prevailing  sentiment  among  the 
body  seems  to  be  that  the  Chinese  central  government  is  sin- 
cerely opposed  to  opium,  and  will  put  forth  great  efforts  to 
check  its  use  joy  the  people  as  soon  as  they  are  relieved  of  the 
foreign  importation,  now  so  iniquitously  forced  upon  them; 
till  then  they  are  paralyzed.” 

Dr.  Mackenzie,  the  physician  to  the  great  Viceroy  Li  Hung 
Chang,  the  virtual  ruler  of  China,  testifies  to  the  latter’s  sin- 


44 


cerity,  and  to  his  determined  purpose  to  do  his  utmost  to 
suppress  the  immoral  and  destructive  traffic.  Prince  Kung, 
the  Regent,  is  well  known  for  his  opposition  to  the  trade. 

GENERAL  TSO  TSENG  TANG. 

Note  G. — Next  to  Li  Hung  Chang  and  Prince  Kung  in 
power  and  influence  is  General  Tso  Tsung  Tang,  who  is  now 
Viceroy  of  three  important  provinces,  and  has  his  official  resi- 
dence at  Nanking.  He  fought  successfully  the  battles  of 
China  against  the  Russians  in  the  north-west,  and  has  put 
down  native  rebellions.  Like  Li  Hung  Chang,  he  is  a man 
of  progress,  and  a determined  opponent  of  the  opium  traffic. 

In  January  of  this  year,  Enoch  J.  Smithers,  United  States 
Consul  at  Chinkiang,  made  a visit  to  Viceroy  Tso.  He  was 
very  cordially  welcomed,  and  treated  with  unusual  respect  and 
honor,  in  the  presence  of  a very  large  number  of  officials  and 
literati.  When  refreshments  were  served,  the  Viceroy  said, 
according  to  a correspondent  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post: 

“ Now,  Mr.  Consul,  just  try  some  of  these  sweets.  I be- 
lieve that  I 'am  offering  you  something  delicious,  for  these 
sweets  were  prepared  by  my  wife  in  our  distant  home  in 
Hunan,  and  I know  that  they  are  excellent.”  Still  continuing 
conversation,  the  Viceroy  said  : 

“ You  American  people,  in  regard  to  the  late  treaty  con- 
cerning the  opium  traffic  have  done  the  right  thing.  You 
Americans,  Mr.  Consul,  know  what  is  right,  and  have  acted 
upon  that  knowledge.”  Then,  taking  in  his  lingers  one  of  the 
choicest  delicacies,  he  offered  it  to  Consul  Smithers,  saying  : 
“ Now,  Mr.  Consul,  I give  you  this  sweet  because  I know  that 
it  is  good  and  can  do  you  no  harm.  What  would  you  say 
were  I to  offer  you  opium?  That,  I know,  is  bad.  Do  you 
think  that  I would  be  right  in  offering  it  to  you  ? In  regard 
to  Mr.  Wade,  the  British  Envoy  at  Peking,  and  the  opium 
question,  I believe  that  he  is  vaccilating.  But  whalt  do  you 
think  of  Mr.  Wade’s  course  in  this  ?” 

Consul  Smithers  replied:  “Well,  your  Excellency,  Mr. 
Wade’s  position  has  been  a very  difficult  one  to  fill.  You 
see  that  there  is  in  England  a large  proportion  of  the  people  in 
favor  of  a change  of  policy  with  reference  to  dpium,  but  the 
Governmental  party  are  still  in  favor  of  obtaining  revenue  by 
that  means.” 

To  this  the  Viceroy  made  no  reply. 

We  are  sorry  that  the  Consul  was  not  outspoken  in  opposi- 


45 


tion  to  England’s  disgraceful  policy,  and  the  course  of  Minis- 
ter Wade. 

When  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  a Message  to 
Congress,  speaks  of  the  opium  traffic  as  “ that  demoralizing 
and  destructive  trade,”  and  when  even  an  English  Consul  in 
China,  Mr.  Lay,  writes  that  “ it  is  hamstringing  the  Chinese 
nation,”  it  is  very  fitting  in  every  man,  no  matter  what  his 
nationality  or  his  position,  to  use  plainness  of  speech  con- 
cerning this  odious  and  ruinous  business,  and  the  equally 
odious  policy  which  sustains  it. 

It  is  not  a mere  political  question,  but  it  is  one  of  humanity, 
morality  and  religion ; and  it  is  becoming  in  every  oppo- 
nent of  the  enforced  traffic,  to  express  freely  his  opposition, 
and  to  use  all  possible  influence  against  it. 

A PEOHIBITORT  LAW  IN  NEW  YORK 

Note  H. — Since  the  remarks  on  pages  20  and  21  were 
written,  the  following  prohibitory  law  has  passed  both 
branches  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  : 

Every  person  who  opens  or  maintains,  to  be  resorted  to  by 
other  persons,  any  place  where  opium,  or  any  of  its  prepara- 
tions, is  sold  or  given  away,  to  be  smoked  at  such  place,  and 
any  person  who  at  such  place  sells  or  gives  away  any  opium, 
or  its  said  preparations,  to  be  there  smoked  or  otherwise 
used,  and  any  person  who  visits  or  resorts  to  any  such  place 
for  the  purpose  of  smoking  opium  or  its  said  preparations, 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a misdemeanor,  and  upon  convic- 
tion thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  a fine  not  exceeding  $500 
and  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  not  exceeding  three 
months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

The  urgent  need  for  such  a law,  (though  it  is  not  severe 
enough,  as  the  experience  under  a similar  law  in  California 
proves,)  may  be  seen  in  the  following  from  the  New  York 
Sun,  of  August  15th: 

Sergeant  Thompson,  acting  Captain  of  the  Elizabeth  Street 
police,  arraigned  in  the  Tombs  Police  Court  yesterday  morn- 
ing several  Chinamen  and  white  women.  A policeman  carried 
a basket  of  strange-looking  pipes  and  lamps  and  odd-looking 
little  cakes  of  a dark  substance.  The  Sergeant  told  Justice 
Gardner  that  on  Saturday  night  he  had  made  a descent  upon 
the  opium  den  at  21  Pell  street.  “Men  and  women  go  there 


46 


every  night,”  he  said.  “ The  odor  of  opium  is  so  strong  that 
it  pervades  the  whole  neighborhood.  Men  come  staggering 
out  at  all  hours,  and  often  get  robbed.” 

The  prisoners  were  five  Chinamen  and  several  women. 
The  appearance  of  Ah  Chung,  the  proprietor  of  the  den,  sug- 
gested that  of  an  Egyptian  mummy.  He  did  not  move  ex- 
cept when  touched,  and  he  seemed  to  have  only  a spark  of 
life  in  him.  By  his  side  was  William  Sing,  whose  opium 
dreams  had  left  him  in  such  a happy  mood  that  he  grinned 
and  smiled  and  seemed  to  enjoy  his  visit  to  the  court.  Phing 
Fee  was  surly,  while  mild-mannered  Lee  Tong  looked  crest- 
fallen and  afraid.  Doc  Hop,  the  strongest  of  the  men,  eyed 
the  basket  filled  with  pipes  and  cakes  of  opium.  Mrs.  Wong 
Ah  Tel,  a pale-faced,  yellow-haired  Irish  girl,  glanced  at  Ah 
Tel,  who  sat  in  the  room,  and  tried  to  signal  to  her  his  sym- 
pathy. Susan  Chang  was  still  under  the  influence  of  the 
drug. 

Mary  J.  Fitzgerald,  Kate  Moss,  Mary  O’Brien,  Mary  Fitz- 
gerald, Maggie  Hogan,  and  Bella  Murray,  opium  smokers, 
were  also  among  the  prisoners.  A lawyer  tried  to  convince 
Justice  Gardner  that  the  Chinamen  considered  the  effect  of 
the  Indian  poppy  a near  approach  to  Heaven;  but  the  Justice 
replied:  “In  this  country  we  don’t  want  any  poppy  heaven. 
I will  put  a stop  to  the  habit  if  I can,” 

Justice  Gardner  held  Ah  Chung  for  trial  in  default  of  $1,000 
bail,  and  sent  all  the  other  prisoners  to  the  Island  for  six 
months,  in  default  of  $500  bail  for  their  good  behavior. 

These  arrests  were  made  under  the  old  law  against  dis- 
orderly conduct,  and  on  complaint  of  the  residents  in  the 
house  who  were  annoyed  by  the  opium  smokers.  Sergeant 
Thompson  at  first  proposed  to  have  the  arrest  made  under  the 
new  law  passed  by  the  last  Legislature,  but  it  appeared  that, 
although  the  act  provided  that  the  law  should  take  effect  im- 
mediately, the  requisite  official  notification  has  not  yet  reached 
this  city,  and  Justice  Gardner  was  not  prepared  to  issue  a 
warrant  under  it. 


47 


ADDITIONAL  TESTIMONY. 

“ During  the  last  hundred  years  or  a little  more,  we  have 
subjected  200  millions  of  people  in  Asia  to  our  rule  ; we 
have  had  two  or  three  wars  with  the  Chinese  Empire,  arising, 
first  of  all,  out  of  our  determination  to  insist  upon  it  that  they 
should  allow  us  to  introduce  opium  to  the  people. — Rt.  Son. 
John  Bright,  in  1881. 

“ It  is  remarkable  that  we  are  doing  more  than  any  other 
nation  for  the  advancement  of  the  gospel  over  the  habitable 
globe;  and  remarkable  it  is  that  we  are  doing  more  than  all 
other  nations  put  together,  tor  the  purpose  of  preventing  and 
repressing  the  effects  of  that  gospel.” — Earl  of  Shaftesbury. 

“One  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty  with  China,  contains  the 
clause  that  the  Chinese  are  no  longer  to  call  us  Barbarians — a 
most  important  clause.  But  it  is  much  more  important  that 
we  do  not  in  any  respect  act  as  Barbarians.  I am  convinced 
that  the  present  course  pursued  by  us  is  one  that  ought  to  be 
abandoned  at  whatever  cost.” — Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

“ I do  not  believe  that  there  has  been  a blacker  page  in  the 
history  of  our  country  than  that  which  records  our  transactions 
with  China.” — Wm.  McArthur,  M.  P.,  Lord  Mayor  of 
London. 

“From  whatever  side  we  view  it  the  responsibility  of  the 
English  government  in  fostering  and  forcing  this  vice  upon 
the  Chinese  people,  finds  no  justification,  and  the  continuance 
of  the  trade  at  the  present  day  merits  only  condemnation.” — 
H.  H.  Kane,  M.  JD.,  New  York. 

“ It  would  be  a disastrous  thing  for  England  if,  upon  the 
fiimsy  pleas  that  have  been  urged,  there  should  be  persist- 
ence in  a wrong  which  the  whole  civilized  world  exclaims 
against.  We  stand  alone  in  this  infamy,  furnishing  to  the 
nations  by  our  conduct  only  too  plausible  a motive  for  assert- 
ing that  all  our  endeavours  after  righteousness  are  but  a 
mockery,  and  that  our  zeal  for  religion  is  only  a cloak  for  our 
covetousness.” — Church  Missionary  Lntelligencer,  May, 
1892. 


48 


“ I really  do  not  remember  in  any  history  a war  under- 
taken with  such  combined  injustice  and  baseness.  Ordinary 
wars  of  conquest  are  to  me  far  less  wicked  than  to  go  to  war 
in  order  to  maintain  smuggling,  and  that  smuggling  consist- 
ing in  the  introduction  of  a demoralizing  drug,  which  the 
Government  of  China  wishes  to  keep  out.” — Dr.  Arnold,  of 
Rugby,  on  the  first  Opium  War. 

“ So  important  is  opium  financially,  that  having  introduced 
it  at  the  bayonet’s  point,  we  had  better  let  it  rest  than  at- 
tempt to  defend  our  indefensible  action.” — North  China 
Herald,  (English.) 

“ In  all  the  twenty-eight  centuries  which  the  Chinese  claim 
of  history,  they  say  they  never  conceived  of  an  act  so  cruel 
and  so  enormously  wicked,  as  that  of  forcing  the  deadly 
Opium  Traffic  upon  an  unwilling  people.” — From  ‘’^Around 
the  World  Tourfi  by  Rev.  W.  F.  Bambridge. 

“ I can  conceive  of  nothing  more  ignominious  than  the  po- 
sition of  a great  Imperial  Government  manufacturing  the 
opium,  selling  the  opium,  and  entering  into  all  the  details  of 
retail  dealers.  It  is  a nefarious  traffic,  and  a national  abomi- 
nation.”— Earl  of  Shaftesburg,  1881. 

“ The  greater  the  love  a man  has  for  his  country  and  for 
his  church,  the  more  bitterly  will  he  deplore,  the  more  ear- 
nestly will  he  denounce,  acts  which  bring  shame  upon  both.” 
— Rev.  J.  Llewelyn  Davies. 


V 


I ■ 

■■i 


Pk 

'4 

t 

f 


if-. 

I 


'0- 


i 


r:  ■; 


( 


r- 


r: 

K 


r.'i'y 


\ 


’s' 

liJ 


2^"'^  " '■ 

Z'Sf-S*' 

5^— -> 

«V.,' 

• .it 

j- '!  5^^  2*^7  V 
: vr 

■s>:_,''^:-  f-..-.  J-t-iiAS"',  c 


HV5816  .L723 

Opium:  England's  coercive  policy  and  its 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1 1012  00025  6737 


